10-2-5-a2

[Welpe]

In looking up rule references for a play, I came across again a statement in 10-2-5-a2 that is not very clear to me.

ARTICLE 5. a. Fouls by the nonscoring team during a down that ends in a touchdown (not on the try).

2. Penalties for all other fouls are not enforced on the try or the succeeding kickoff. Such penalties are declined by rule unless enforcement is made possible by illegal touching of a kick during the down (A.R. 6-3-2-IIIIV).

What does the clause "unless enforcement is made possible by illegal touching of a kick during the down" actually mean?

Looking at both of those AR plays, it is not clear to me when illegal touching of a kick makes penalty enforcement possible. Can somebody help distill this for me?

[jg-me]

Typically this would be an A-B-A situation where A scores after the last COP. There would also have to be an illegal touch of the kick by A. AR 6-3-2-III is pretty straightforward as B's foul occurs at a point in the play where the potential enforcment spot is the goal line - the penalty is declined by rule (5,10 yard penalties) and we go back to the IT spot. AR 6-3-2-IV is where 10-2-5-a-2 really comes into effect. B commits a foul at a poiint in the down where there IS an enforcement spot we can use. Without the 10-2-5-a-2 'exception' there could be no enforcement as the penalty would be declined by rule. The AR itself gets a bit vague in that we are not given any spot of IT or spot of foul. However because the foul occurs while B has the ball Team A will be left with a choice. Either enforce the penalty as we would during any run play or A can decline the penalty which will leave B with the ball at the IT spot whichever is to A's advantage.
  This is probably as clear as mud but that is the reason for the wording of 10-2-5-a-2.

[Hawkeye]

My understanding of this section is that if there was illegal touching of a kick during the down that ended in a touchdown, you first have to determine during which run the foul by the non-scoring team occurred:

If the foul occurred during the touchdown run, then you decline the penalty by rule and ask about the illegal touching option.  In this case we revert to the fact that 5 and 10 yarders are declined by rule.  This is because the enforcement spot for the foul would be the end of the related run which is the goal line (three and one), so this foul is unenforceable.

If the foul occurred during a run that did not end in a touchdown, then it is enforceable under three and one and rule 5-2-4.  This allows penalizing the non-scoring for their foul which could leave the ball behind the illegal touching spot.  Prior to that editorial change, you would just decline the foul.  Note: it could also result in team A having possession (see play #4).

Play #1: A's ball 4th and 7 on the A-35.  A20 punts the ball and it is rolling on the B-33 when A80 touches the ball.  B40 then picks up the ball and runs to the B-38 where he fumbles.  A40 picks up the fumble and runs for a touchdown.  During A40's run, B70 holds at the B-35.  RULING: B's ball 1st and 10 on the B-33.  Team B's foul is declined by rule and team B exercises its option to take the ball at the spot of illegal touching.

Play #2: A's ball 4th and 7 on the A-35.  A20 punts the ball and it is rolling on the B-33 when A80 touches the ball.  B40 then picks up the ball and runs to the B-38 where he fumbles.  A40 picks up the fumble and runs for a touchdown.  During B40's run, B70 holds at the B-35.  RULING: B's ball 1st and 10 on the B-25.  Team B's foul can be enforced under 5-2-4 so team A accepts the foul.  Since there is an accepted penalty,  team B no longer has an option to take the ball at the spot of illegal touching.

Play #3: A's ball 4th and 7 on the A-35.  A20 punts the ball and it is rolling on the B-33 when A80 touches the ball.  B40 then picks up the ball and runs to the B-38 where he fumbles.  A40 picks up the fumble and runs for a touchdown.  During B40's run, B70 holds at the B-45.  RULING: B's ball 1st and 10 on the B-33.  Team B's foul can be enforced under 5-2-4, however team A declines the foul and lets team B exercise its option to take the ball at the spot of illegal touching.  If team A had accepted the penalty, it would have been B's ball 1st and 10 on the B-35.

Play #4: A's ball 4th and 7 on the A-35.  A20 punts the ball and it is rolling on the B-33 when A80 touches the ball.  B40 then picks up the ball and runs to the B-38 where he fumbles.  A40 picks up the fumble and runs  to the B-25 where he fumbles.  B25 picks up the fumble and runs to the B-25 where he fumbles.  A45 picks up the fumble and runs for a touchdown.  During A40's run, B70 holds at the B-20.  RULING: A's ball 1st and 10 on the B-15.  Team B's foul can be enforced under 5-2-4, team A will accept this penalty because they will have possession after enforcement.  Since there is an accepted penalty,  team B no longer has an option to take the ball at the spot of illegal touching.

I hope that helps.

[Welpe]

My understanding of this section is that if there was illegal touching of a kick during the down that ended in a touchdown, you first have to determine during which run the foul by the non-scoring team occurred:

If the foul occurred during the touchdown run, then you decline the penalty by rule and ask about the illegal touching option.  In this case we revert to the fact that 5 and 10 yarders are declined by rule.  This is because the enforcement spot for the foul would be the end of the related run which is the goal line (three and one), so this foul is unenforceable.

jg and Hawkeye, thank you for your responses. Unfortunately this is still what I'm having trouble with.

Absent illegal touching, if we have a turnover situation with a foul by B either during their run or during A's run, I don't see a provision in the rules that would not result in 5 and 10 yard fouls being declined. I think that part is obvious.

What I'm failing to understand is how is it that illegal touching can result in there being an enforcement spot in some circumstances but not others (other than 6-3-11). In other words, how does the timing of B's foul result in there being an enforcement spot from illegal touching or not? The only support I see is in AR 6-3-2-IV. Is that all there is? Also notice that there is an exception to 5-2-4 and that is 10-2-5-a...seems rather circular to me.

[clearwall]

I was confused on all of these until I started thinking about "who has the ball when the foul occurs." Once I realized this, this all makes more sense. Thanks for the cases.

[Hawkeye]

jg and Hawkeye, thank you for your responses. Unfortunately this is still what I'm having trouble with.

Absent illegal touching, if we have a turnover situation with a foul by B either during their run or during A's run, I don't see a provision in the rules that would not result in 5 and 10 yard fouls being declined. I think that part is obvious.

Yes, you are correct, if there is no illegal touching, then we decline all 5 & 10 yard penalties by the non-scoring team by rule and the touchdown stands.

However, in the instance when there IS an illegal touching of a kick and there is a touchdown on the play, we must determine if the 5 or 10 yard penalty CAN be enforced.  If it can, then give the option to the scoring team.  If it can't, then ask about the illegal touching.

The reason that the penalty that occurs during a touchdown run (the actual run that scores) by the non-scoring team can't be enforced is because the enforcement spot is the goal line and enforcement would take you into the end zone.  If, however, the foul occurs during a non-scoring run, then there is an enforcement spot (either the end of the related run or the spot of the foul).

I think you may be getting stuck on the fact that there is also a spot for enforcement if there is a foul during a non-scoring run when there is no illegal touching.  Yes, there is, but that scenario doesn't fall under the criteria for 10-2-5-a-2 (i.e. no illegal touching), so we decline by rule.

It has nothing to do with the illegal touching per se, it is just that we go looking to see if the penalty is enforceable IF and only IF there happens to be an illegal touching during the play.

The reason this came about was because team A wasn't going to get a touchdown on play because they committed illegal touching and the foul by team B was only 5 or 10 yards.  So the argument became: well why can't we accept the penalty if it will result in team B starting out further back than the illegal touching spot, after all they fouled too.

As for the exception in 5-2-4, I believe that it should say "Exception 10-2-5-a-1".  In the 2008 rule book, the exception read "Exception 10-2-2-g-1-a" and 10-2-2-g-1-a became 10-2-5-a-1 in 2009, whereas 10-2-2-g-1-b became 10-2-5-a-2.

[Welpe]

All is clear now, thanks Hawkeye. 

[Hawkeye]

Glad to know!  It helped me understand it more in depth by writing it out too.

[Welpe]

Well there is the saying that you don't really learn until you teach. I'm glad you got something out of it too. 

[sj_31]

Looking through this thread and great scenarios. Still having a problem with play #4

Play #4: A's ball 4th and 7 on the A-35.  A20 punts the ball and it is rolling on the B-33 when A80 touches the ball.  B40 then picks up the ball and runs to the B-38 where he fumbles.  A40 picks up the fumble and runs  to the B-25 where he fumbles.  B25 picks up the fumble and runs to the B-25 where he fumbles.  A45 picks up the fumble and runs for a touchdown.  During A40's run, B70 holds at the B-20.  RULING: A's ball 1st and 10 on the B-15.  Team B's foul can be enforced under 5-2-4, team A will accept this penalty because they will have possession after enforcement.  Since there is an accepted penalty,  team B no longer has an option to take the ball at the spot of illegal touching.

From 10-2-5-a-2, "...during a DOWN that ends in a touchdown..."

Is it correct to say that 5-10 yard fouls being declined by rule is not an absolute because of the clause that states that "...unless enforcement is made possible by illegal touching of a kick."

In play 4 above, enforcement is made possible because a foul occurs during a run that gives us a basic spot that is not the goal line. My question is how does illegal touching per se affect this scenario? We still have a DOWN that ends in a touchdown.

[Welpe]

sj, that's a great question and I'm still not convinced the rule is worded in a manner that supports the outcome of the ARs (or your play). This very concept is what prompted me to start this thread. Thankfully we had plenty of folks here to provide the intent and purpose of the rule.

[Robert Lewis]

In play 4 above, enforcement is made possible because a foul occurs during a run that gives us a basic spot that is not the goal line. My question is how does illegal touching per se affect this scenario? We still have a DOWN that ends in a touchdown.

Imagine that the last Team A runner is tackled at the 1 yard line rather than scoring a touchdown. Team A would have the option to accept the penalty against Team B and keep the ball.

Prior to the addition of the phrase"unless enforcement is made possible by illegal touching of a kick during the down", if Team A scored the option to accept a 5 or 10 yard penalty and keep the ball did not exist - those penalties were declined by rule, no exceptions. So, in essence, Team A was penalized by scoring on the play.

[sj_31]

So would it be accurate to say that the intent of that phrase would be something as follows:

If a foul occurs during a down in which there is a score (which the scoring team will be Team A in these cases because they are the only ones that can commit illegal touching), the statute of the rule that states "...always declined by rule..." is disregarded when said foul occurs in such a manner that it is possible to be enforced as a 3-and-1, e.g., there is a valid basic spot that can be used that is not the goal line.

Hopefully that makes sense.

[Kalle]

So would it be accurate to say that the intent of that phrase would be something as follows:

If a foul occurs during a down in which there is a score (which the scoring team will be Team A in these cases because they are the only ones that can commit illegal touching), the statute of the rule that states "...always declined by rule..." is disregarded when said foul occurs in such a manner that it is possible to be enforced as a 3-and-1, e.g., there is a valid basic spot that can be used that is not the goal line.

Hopefully that makes sense.

Yes, you got it. You can think of the exception sentence in the way that there is never a reason for team A to decline a touchdown and have a team B foul enforced, unless a) team A has fouled too or b) there's illegal touching. That's why the rule speaks of illegal touching in this situation, as other situations are taken care by offsetting fouls rules.

[Robert Lewis]

So would it be accurate to say that the intent of that phrase would be something as follows:

If a foul occurs during a down in which there is a score (which the scoring team will be Team A in these cases because they are the only ones that can commit illegal touching), the statute of the rule that states "...always declined by rule..." is disregarded when said foul occurs in such a manner that it is possible to be enforced as a 3-and-1, e.g., there is a valid basic spot that can be used that is not the goal line.

Hopefully that makes sense.

I think you could say this - the foul by the opponent of the scoring team has to occur prior to the last change of team possession in order for a 5 or 10-yard penalty to be enforced.

Please correct me if that is wrong.