Author Topic: Ok, fellow Canadians  (Read 5460 times)

Offline Livin' in the pit

  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Ok, fellow Canadians
« on: September 16, 2012, 04:53:57 PM »
Last play of the game. Visiting team leads by one point. 23 seconds left on the clock, last play inbounds. Visitors have the ball, 3D and 8 on the home side's 32.

With the clock running and showing 5 seconds left, the visiting (A) team QB takes the snap and starts running backwards, towards the 55. When the clock goes to 00, the quarterback stops. However, he is immediately tackled, and stripped of the ball.
B recovers the ball at the 55. At this point all the following happen about simultaneously:
a) fans from the both the home and visiting team pour onto the field, celebrating.
b) a B team player recovers the loose ball and begins sprinting to the endzone, and in short order, scores a touchdown.
c) players from the visiting team bench flood onto the field, some celebrating, apparently, a win.
d) players from the home team bench flood onto the field, some celebrating, apparently, a win.
e) a melee breaks out at the B45 involving fans and players. During the melee, and just as or after the fumble-recoverer scores an apparent touchdown, two B players engage in acts of RP.


Standard Canadian rules: what the HECK do you do? Please note location of next play, if any.

PS: Officials felt that players/fans of both sides interfered with the play, to both the aid and detriment of both sides, including the ability of A players to see the turnover, react to it, and pursue the B player who recovered the loose ball.

PPS: this actually happened.




Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #1 on: September 16, 2012, 05:36:03 PM »
From what I read you've got a dual unauthorized interference.  In the end, I think you're going to get differing opinions from about just as many people you ask.

In your alphabetical list, you mentioned that the elements happened "about simultaneously".  That's ok, but we still need to know what happened first.

Because you said that A was hindered from even knowing that there was a fumble recovery, then I'm leaning towards B UI first.  This means that I would not award nor allow a TD.  However, Team A players subsequently being flagged for an act that could award a TD.

You can't apply a foul where a TD is definitely not scored and award a TD.  (2nd LBI in a dual LBI is treated as a 10-yard foul.)

And A's actions under 1-13-4b were significantly more egregious than a simple 10-yard foul, I would enforce more than a 10-yard foul.

So I would apply L10 from PBH for the B interference.  As you mentioned, the fumble recovery happened at the 55.  Let's say he gained 5 yards before B players/fans entered the field.  So PBH is the Team A 50.  This takes us to the Team B 50.  Then I would enforce half-the-distance to A's goal, with 3 guaranteed plays.  This takes us to the Team A 30.  Then the two RPs must be enforced.  This takes us back to the Team B 30 yard line, with with 3 guaranteed plays.

I think this is fair for everyone as it incorporates all the rules available to us.  It's also easy to understand and follows conventional penalty enforcement: apply at points of application in the order they happened.

B could have been in decent shape, if they hadn't had the two RPs, which also makes sense because those two fouls never need to happen.
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 03:45:56 AM by JugglingReferee »

Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #2 on: September 16, 2012, 05:39:37 PM »
What did you do?

Is there a YouTube clip?
« Last Edit: September 17, 2012, 03:46:49 AM by JugglingReferee »

Offline Livin' in the pit

  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #3 on: September 17, 2012, 06:50:13 AM »
Checked for a YouTube clip - there's nuttin.

I won't tell you what our crew did: I want to see what others would do ... kinda a rules challenge. Pretend you have 1,000 fans, 90 football players and two coaches offering advice. :)

Offline Livin' in the pit

  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #4 on: September 17, 2012, 09:10:59 AM »
Let me hint at our thought process: how do you apply penalties without defined/set yardage applications when they are part of a dual-foul situation?

Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #5 on: September 17, 2012, 09:20:56 AM »
You may have offset the L10 with a L10 at PBH.  And maybe you gave B 3 plays?

Offline Livin' in the pit

  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #6 on: September 17, 2012, 07:45:48 PM »
I/we invoked 8.6.2(d) to its letter:
"if one of the dual fouls is a non-distance foul, it shall be applied as a 10-yard penalty."

So the 10-yard infraction of the Team B unauthorized interference (remember, B had the ball), creating a dual-foul situation with the UI of A, which turns the automatic touchdown provision allowed for due to player/coach unauthorized interference (1.13.4.(b) would have awarded a major if only A players/coaches were on the field: "... if the unauthorized person is a substitute, coach, trainer or other occupant of the team bench, [the referee] shall award a touchdown.").

So we went 50 yards back from centre, and allowed one play from the 5.

Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #7 on: September 20, 2012, 07:28:03 AM »
That was my suspicion.  That's why earlier I said "And A's actions under 1-13-4b were significantly more egregious than a simple 10-yard foul, I would enforce more than a 10-yard foul".  If you think about what B's penalty is, it is taking away (a) (i) a touchdown or (ii) serious yardage, and (b) enforcing a 10 yard penalty.  A's actions were only penalized 10 yards.  (You didn't not give them a TD because of A's action, you didn't give B a TD because you already ruled that they're not getting a TD from (a) (i).)

Also, is there a reason why you didn't give B three plays?

Just wondering.

Offline Livin' in the pit

  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #8 on: September 20, 2012, 10:31:13 AM »
That was my suspicion.  That's why earlier I said "And A's actions under 1-13-4b were significantly more egregious than a simple 10-yard foul, I would enforce more than a 10-yard foul".  If you think about what B's penalty is, it is taking away (a) (i) a touchdown or (ii) serious yardage, and (b) enforcing a 10 yard penalty.  A's actions were only penalized 10 yards.  (You didn't not give them a TD because of A's action, you didn't give B a TD because you already ruled that they're not getting a TD from (a) (i).)

Also, is there a reason why you didn't give B three plays?

Part of the problem here, I reiterate, is that players *and* fans of both teams swamped the field at various points in the game.

The one thing we were certain of: B gained possession of the ball before any infractions occurred.

After that, we couldn't award the B touchdown, because of the reality that A players would have been unable to pursue the play due to impediment of both fans and B players - the B bench was on that side of the field.

The reason we didn't give three plays is pretty darn simple: we invoked, to the letter, "if one of the dual fouls is a non-distance foul, it shall be applied as a 10-yard penalty."

Does it seem fair? I don't know. All I know is that 8.6.2(d) is the only authority we had in the book, and it certainly seems to suggest that non-distance fouls such as "half the distance, three plays" become "10 yards."

Might well be something that goes up the rules committee ladder for consideration.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2012, 10:33:12 AM by Livin' in the pit »

Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #9 on: September 20, 2012, 11:38:43 AM »
I bet they never thought of dual UIs.  lol

You would have had justification to keep 3 plays: when there is a change to an element outside of yardage applied, it specifically states so.  Eg:  DPI in a dual does not carry an AFD.  The removal of the AFD is explicity stated.  Because there is no specific language to not give B 3 downs in a dual UI, you could have by extension of existing rules.

I only say this, because I think A got off easy.   ;)

Offline Livin' in the pit

  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #10 on: September 20, 2012, 11:47:16 AM »
Because there is no specific language to not give B 3 downs in a dual UI, you could have by extension of existing rules.

I only say this, because I think A got off easy.   ;)

Valid point.

83andlearning

  • Guest
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #11 on: October 02, 2012, 09:29:21 AM »
What rule would allow for three plays to be awarded after time elapses?

Offline JugglingReferee

  • *
  • Posts: 1056
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-15
  • Ἰησοῦς Χριστός, Θεοῦ Υἱός, Σωτήρ
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #12 on: October 02, 2012, 09:34:36 AM »
What rule would allow for three plays to be awarded after time elapses?

1-13-4-b-3

Offline Livin' in the pit

  • *
  • Posts: 677
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
Re: Ok, fellow Canadians
« Reply #13 on: October 02, 2012, 10:51:15 AM »
1-13-4-b-3

But again, that's for a singular foul. 8.6.2(d) clearly states: "If one of the dual fouls is a non-distance foul, it shall be applied as a 10-yard (10 metre) penalty - e.g. Illegal FP Interference by Team B, less than 15 yds (15 metre) from PLS."

And I would argue that "half the distance to the goal-line, plus three plays" is a non-distance foul.

I think the rules committee has to issue a clarification on this, to be honest. I mean, I get your points, but there's an ambiguity that ought to be clarified.