DPI on scoring play

[VALJ]

Had this on Friday night.  Didn't feel right, but I got overruled...

We had a DPI committed by a defensive back on the receiver of a forward pass.  The A player caught the ball anyway, and went on to score a TD.  The R (and U) both said that A had to decline the penalty to keep the score.  I told them I thought they could keep the score and enforce on the try or the kickoff under 8-2-2 (though I didn't have the exact rule number in my head), but both of them said no, and the WH declined it for A.

[maven]

You were correct.

[NoVaBJ]

You were correct.

+1

[HLinNC]

+2

And our resident youth coach/rules expert on the other board predicts the  NFHS will alter their own rule in a season or two from now.

[cbrunnjo]

They could also go half the dist on the PAT, correct.

[HLinNC]

 Yes, but most are going to take it on the subsequent kickoff unless they are going for two.

[bbeagle]

We had a DPI committed by a defensive back on the receiver of a forward pass.  The A player caught the ball anyway, and went on to score a TD.

DPI should be 15 yards (or half the distance) from the previous spot. Page 63. Table 7-5. The DPI was committed during a loose ball, not a running play. You can't enforce this from the end of the run.

WH was entirely correct. 10-3-1b, 10-4-2b.

I don't understand what you guys are all reading into the rulebook.

8-2-2 is not meant for DPI, or any foul where the enforcement spot is the previous spot, despite the rules not stating so, it's obvious. Someone needs to take a stand here and do what's right.

[maven]

I don't understand what you guys are all reading into the rulebook.

What part of "scoring play" are you struggling to understand?

[VALJ]

8-2-2 is not meant for DPI, or any foul where the enforcement spot is the previous spot, despite the rules not stating so, it's obvious. Someone needs to take a stand here and do what's right.

"If an opponent of the scoring team commits a foul (other than unsportsmanlike conduct on [sic] a nonplayer foul) during a down in which a touchdown is scored and there was not a change of possession during the down, A may accept the results of the play and choose enforcement of the penalty:
a.  On the try, or
b.  On the subsequent kickoff."

Not sure I see an exception for previous spot foul here.

[HLinNC]

8-2-2 is not meant for DPI, or any foul where the enforcement spot is the previous spot, despite the rules not stating so, it's obvious. Someone needs to take a stand here and do what's right.

.       

bbeagle, do you have a local chapter where you discuss these interps?  This rule is several years old now.

[AFSST]

DPI should be 15 yards (or half the distance) from the previous spot. Page 63. Table 7-5. The DPI was committed during a loose ball, not a running play. You can't enforce this from the end of the run.

WH was entirely correct. 10-3-1b, 10-4-2b.

I don't understand what you guys are all reading into the rulebook.

8-2-2 is not meant for DPI, or any foul where the enforcement spot is the previous spot, despite the rules not stating so, it's obvious. Someone needs to take a stand here and do what's right.

Have to disagree with you...if B fouls on A's scoring play, B gets the option of enforcing on the try or subsequent Kickoff.  (So if Overtime applies, the foul must be enforced on the try.)

What you may be thinking of: if B is guilty of DPI and A does not score, then A will either take the result of the play or the DPI foul.  They can't have both if A does not score. 

[Ump33]

8-2-2 is not meant for DPI, or any foul where the enforcement spot is the previous spot, despite the rules not stating so, it's obvious. Someone needs to take a stand here and do what's right.

8.2.2 Situation E: Prior to the ball being thrown during a play in which A1 catches a touchdown pass and advances for a touchdown, B1 holds A2 to prevent him from going out for a pass on the side away from the play. When given options, A elects to enforce the penalty for the defensive holding foul on the subsequent kickoff. During the successful two-point try, B1 is guilty of holding A1. Does A have the option of having the 10-yard penalty added on to the previous 10-yard penalty on the subsequent kickoff? Ruling: Yes. The fouls did not occur during the same down, so these are not considered multiple fouls and, therefore, they may both be enforced on the subsequent kickoff. (8-3-5b; 10-2-4)

bbeagle - Since B1 fouled "Prior to the ball being thrown", B1's foul is part of a Loose Ball Play and Loose Ball Plays carry Previous Spot Enforcement ... unless Team A scores. Then the foul is enforced "either / or" 

[bama_stripes]

Have to disagree with you...if B fouls on A's scoring play, A gets the option of enforcing on the try or subsequent Kickoff. 

Fixed it for you.

[Atlanta Blue]

bbeagle:

Are you just trying to  ?  If not, then reread 8-2-2.  You don't get to rewrite the rule book.

Philosophically, SHOULD this foul be allowed to carry over?  I don't think so, I think that should be limited to personal fouls.  But that isn't the current rule.  ALL fouls by B on a TD or FG carry over.

[bbeagle]

Philosophically, SHOULD this foul be allowed to carry over?  I don't think so, I think that should be limited to personal fouls.  But that isn't the current rule.  ALL fouls by B on a TD or FG carry over.

So, in general (except for unsportsmanlike and non-player fouls) there is NO situation in NFHS where

 
Defensive Penalty declined

 
Touchdown

This happens constantly. I see this all the time. I guess everyone around my area is wrong.

I've always known: Roughing the QB, personal fouls, are enforced on the try or the kickoff, but on many occasions in games, you get a play like this:

A1 drops back to pass, flag thrown on the line, pass caught by A2 who proceeds to run 30 yards for a touchdown. Coach A1 fumes that a touchdown is taken off the board, then the referee signals that the illegal hands-to-the-face is against the defense. The coach cheers, the WH signals illegal use of the hands - defense. Penalty declined. Result of the play: Touchdown. Nary a word by either team about the penalty enforcement.

I guess this is something that now that I know the rule, I'll enforce. But, it flies in the face of what I have known about the rules. Glad I've got this board to understand the rules better.

[Atlanta Blue]

I guess everyone around my area is wrong.

If they are waiving off defensive penalties on scoring plays by A, then yes, everyone is wrong.

Let's make sure: you in a state other than Texas or Massachusetts, correct?

If so, ALL defensive penalties on scoring plays are carried over, with a choice of enforcement on the try or the kickoff (if there is one).

Been that way for a few years now.

[bbeagle]

If so, ALL defensive penalties on scoring plays are carried over, with a choice of enforcement on the try or the kickoff (if there is one).

In my game 2 weeks ago, we had an intercepted pass by Team B, and during the return, Team A committed a 15-yard facemask penalty on B. B scored a touchdown. We enforced this on the kickoff.

I guess we were wrong on that one too.   

[HLinNC]

B scored a touchdown. We enforced this on the kickoff

Actually the wording in the rule book is "the opponent of the scoring team" fouls so you were correct in that enforcement.  Why then are you and apparently other officials in your area so intent in not granting the same rules coverage to A?

[Reff54]

We had a similar play Saturday  but the offensive player involved was not the player scoring.  I believe the reasoning behind this rule is to keep players...or at least discourage the defense from taking "cheap" shots at a offensive player who may be say 30 yards behind the player scoring.  If the offense had to decline a penalty to keep the score...defensive players could have an open opportunity to vent their frustration at getting beat on the play...by taking that cheap shot.  This at least provides consequences if they do take that frustration out on another member of the offensive team...by giving the offense the score and letting them take the penalty yardage on the ensuing kick off if that is their choice.

[maven]

In my game 2 weeks ago, we had an intercepted pass by Team B, and during the return, Team A committed a 15-yard facemask penalty on B. B scored a touchdown. We enforced this on the kickoff.

I guess we were wrong on that one too.   

You were correct: remember, once B intercepts, they become the offense (and the scoring team). So fouls by A after the interception are "defensive" fouls (better: fouls by the opponent of the scoring team).

[bbeagle]

Why then are you and apparently other officials in your area so intent in not granting the same rules coverage to A?

Actually, now that I think about it -
Play: 1st and 10 for A at the A20. A1 passes to the 50 where B2 is guilty of DPI. A2 catches the ball despite the DPI.

Result: DPI is declined, 1st and 10 for A at the 50.

Because the penalty would be declined in the case of a 1st down, I've always thought (incorrectly) that the penalty is also declined during a touchdown play.

[VALJ]

Talking to the umpire yesterday, he had the same logic as the last play bbeagle posted.  It seems very inequitable that the DPI would be declined if they had tackled the receiver in my play on the 1, but should be subject to the 15 yards on the kickoff simply because the WR made it into the EZ.  But crossing that goal line changes everything.

[maven]

Talking to the umpire yesterday, he had the same logic as the last play bbeagle posted.  It seems very inequitable that the DPI would be declined if they had tackled the receiver in my play on the 1, but should be subject to the 15 yards on the kickoff simply because the WR made it into the EZ.  But crossing that goal line changes everything.

As you know, fairness is just one of the priorities of the NFHS rule-makers, and it is sometimes trumped by simplicity, ease of enforcement, and (though not relevant in this case) above all safety.

[HLinNC]

There are lots of officials who think the LOD provision on OPI is overkill or who want to take Federation holding to the previous spot on loose ball plays, yet they remain unchanged.

As was pointed out in a prior post, the rule change has progressively changed over the last 9-10 years to what we have now.  Somebody(ies) wanted it that way.  An about face is probably not going to happen.

My gosh there was a movement to kill off hurdling and they wound up making it a POE!

[bama_stripes]

My gosh there was a movement to kill off hurdling and they wound up making it a POE!

Because the Sports Medicine Advisory Committee requested that this rule not be changed and backed up its request by showing several incidences where players were severely injured while attempting this act.