RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: animalspooker on October 15, 2020, 08:56:51 AM
-
B facemasks on the successful PAT which resulted in a tie game with no time on the clock. Can A take the penalty in overtime?
-
All this is specifically spelled out in 8-2.
To answer your question, yes. a foul by the opponents of the scoring team on a successful try can be enforced at the succeeding spot, which in the case you presented, would be the first play in overtime.
The differences between touchdown scoring plays and try's/field goals are spelled out and specifically worded for a reason.
On touchdowns when time has expired, there is no way to know whether there will be overtime until the try is attempted. Therefore the rulesmakers wisely stated that these fouls can only be taken on the KICKOFF, as opposed to the succeeding spot.
On Try's and field goals, these plays can easily result in a tied game at the conclusion, and so the rulesmakers (once again, wisely) determined fouls during these downs could be enforced from the SUCCEEDING SPOT. Because there will be a succeeding spot (either a kickoff or overtime) in the vast majority of situations. The only situation where that's not the case is a try that actually wins the game on the last play. In that case, the foul would be declined, and the game is over.
-
Calhoun thanks for that post. While I knew the rule, understanding the “why” makes it much easier to remember.
-
Calhoun thanks for that post. While I knew the rule, understanding the “why” makes it much easier to remember.
Same here. If I ever get the why down, a rule is much easier to remember and enforce.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
All this is specifically spelled out in 8-2.
On touchdowns when time has expired, there is no way to know whether there will be overtime until the try is attempted. Therefore the rulesmakers wisely stated that these fouls can only be taken on the KICKOFF, as opposed to the succeeding spot.
Calhoun:
Did you mean to type PAT instead of kickoff? ???
-
Calhoun:
Did you mean to type PAT instead of kickoff? ???
No I meant Kickoff. I probably should have added that the scoring team has the option to take the penalty on the PAT or the KICKOFF. But my post was referencing the differences in those plays that allow only kickoff enforcement versus those that say succeeding spot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Calhoun:
Did you mean to type PAT instead of kickoff? ???
I see the problem. It is true that in a td scoring play with no time, the only option is the PAT because there will be no kickoff. But this is still the reason for the wording. If the td scoring rule read SUCCEEDING spot, then there would be no option to take it on the kickoff, because the succeeding spot on a td scoring play will always be the PAT.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I just came across this thread and need to point out that you can not have a "Carryover" Foul, as defined by 8-2-2,3, & 4, enforced on the first play of Overtime when the foul in question occurred on the last play of the 4th quarter. Only a Dead Ball Foul or Succeeding Spot Foul that occurred during the last play or after it can be enforced on the first play of Overtime. There is no way a live ball foul, such as a face mask foul, can be enforced on the last play of regulation into Overtime, or on a Try into Overtime.
-
I disagree. A face mask foul by the defense on a successful field goal or try to end regulation can be enforced in overtime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
8-2-5
ART. 5 ... If during a successful try, a foul by B occurs, A is given the choice of:
a. Accepting the penalty and replaying the down following enforcement; or
b. Accepting the result of the play and enforcement of the penalty from the succeeding spot.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
If the try ties the game, the succeeding spot will be the first possession in overtime, provided the game has an overtime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
8-4 ART. 3 ... If during a successful field goal, a foul by R occurs, K is given the choice of:
a. Accepting the penalty and replaying the down following enforcement; or
b. Accepting the result of the play and enforcement of the penalty from the succeeding spot.
Same way here. If the live ball foul ties the game the succeeding spot will be overtime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
3.1.1 SITUATION F:
The fourth period ends during a scoring play. During the successful 2-point try, B9 is called for pass interference. A accepts the result of the play, which ties the score and chooses to have the penalty assessed at the succeeding spot. Ruling: This is correct. Since A, by rule, can choose succeeding spot enforcement, and the try was successful, A will likely take enforcement at the succeeding spot to begin overtime. Game officials must be certain to explain the options clearly, not only during penalty administration, but also during the overtime coin toss.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
3.1.1 SITUATION F:
The fourth period ends during a scoring play. During the successful 2-point try, B9 is called for pass interference. A accepts the result of the play, which ties the score and chooses to have the penalty assessed at the succeeding spot. Ruling: This is correct. Since A, by rule, can choose succeeding spot enforcement, and the try was successful, A will likely take enforcement at the succeeding spot to begin overtime. Game officials must be certain to explain the options clearly, not only during penalty administration, but also during the overtime coin toss.
Where in the rules is defensive pass interference described as having a "succeeding spot" enforcement option?
-
Where in the rules is defensive pass interference described as having a "succeeding spot" enforcement option?
Right here:
8-2-5
ART. 5 ... If during a successful try, a foul by B occurs, A is given the choice of:
a. Accepting the penalty and replaying the down following enforcement; or
b. Accepting the result of the play and enforcement of the penalty from the succeeding spot.
*Note: It's not just pass interference. It's any live ball foul by B during a successful try.
-
3.1.1 SITUATION F:
The fourth period ends during a scoring play. During the successful 2-point try, B9 is called for pass interference. A accepts the result of the play, which ties the score and chooses to have the penalty assessed at the succeeding spot. Ruling: This is correct. Since A, by rule, can choose succeeding spot enforcement, and the try was successful, A will likely take enforcement at the succeeding spot to begin overtime. Game officials must be certain to explain the options clearly, not only during penalty administration, but also during the overtime coin toss.
When would A not take the penalty in OT?
Also, what is the rationale for bridging live ball fouls such as this to the next half or OT? I can certainly agree with bridging DB or USC fouls, but not garden-variety fouls such as DPI, FM, etc.
-
When would A not take the penalty in OT?
Also, what is the rationale for bridging live ball fouls such as this to the next half or OT? I can certainly agree with bridging DB or USC fouls, but not garden-variety fouls such as DPI, FM, etc.
Yes. A WILL take the penalty in overtime. That's the point of the casebook play, which BTW, is straight out of the 2020 book. As to why this is true, you will have to ask the rulemakers. As we say, "I don't make 'em, I just enforce 'em."
-
When would A not take the penalty in OT?
Also, what is the rationale for bridging live ball fouls such as this to the next half or OT? I can certainly agree with bridging DB or USC fouls, but not garden-variety fouls such as DPI, FM, etc.
Probably easier than listing out all fouls by the defense that they can carry over. Just let them carry everything over.
-
Probably easier than listing out all fouls by the defense that they can carry over. Just let them carry everything over.
It would seem logical that in situations, where a successful PAT would crate a tie came, requiring OT, removal of consequences for ANY live ball foul, that may likely reduce the probability of the PAT being successful, would inadvertently encourage fouling if necessary to preventing the PAT from being successful.
-
It would seem logical that in situations, where a successful PAT would crate a tie came, requiring OT, removal of consequences for ANY live ball foul, that may likely reduce the probability of the PAT being successful, would inadvertently encourage fouling if necessary to preventing the PAT from being successful.
Agree. This seems logical
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
When the Fed revamped rule 8, the philosophy was that B (or the opponent of the scoring team in the event of a turnover) should not get a "free shot" for committing a foul on a scoring play. DPI was the prime example when a receiver managed to catch the ball and score.
Personally, I think it is overblown at this point and I would favor changing it to only live ball personal fouls "bridging" over from a scoring play and go back to A having to decline other live ball fouls by B. If a receiver manages to score in spite of DPI, was that really a "free shot" at A?
-
Since we are confessing, I agree. I have never liked the idea of the scoring team getting the points and the penalty.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
If the try ties the game, the succeeding spot will be the first possession in overtime, provided the game has an overtime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Excellent responses, Calhoun, we should also explain to both coaches the potential of winning the toss. To A's coach; "If you win the toss, you can choose to go on offense from B's 5 OR go on defense with the ball @ the 25...". DON'T LET IT BE A SURPRISE AFTER THE TOSS !
-
I agree Ralph. Thanks for the reminder.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
When the Fed revamped rule 8, ...........
For today's trivia question when did the Fed actually revamp rule 8 such that the carryover applied universally?
-
For today's trivia question when did the Fed actually revamp rule 8 such that the carryover applied universally?
Wild guess 2011
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I cheated. 2009
https://football.refs.org/rules/NFrules2009pr.html
-
I cheated. 2009
https://football.refs.org/rules/NFrules2009pr.html
Lol. Google is your friend.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Only reason I said 2011 was because I took 2005-2010 off when I moved down south. I came back to my hometown, signed back up in 2011. I remember getting my rule book and reading 8. I called my Wh and the conversation went like, “I know I can’t be reading this right. You mean to tell me that A can score Without having to decline B’s foul?” He was like, “Yep.” I said, “what in the world has happened to the game of football?”
Sometimes I still wonder.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Google is your friend.
Actually I have it bookmarked. For 2010 and beyond, I print them off from NFHS and keep in a notebook.
I want to think that page was connected to The Official Forum at some point but I could be wrong.
-
That's a cool idea.
-
Personally, I think it is overblown at this point and I would favor changing it to only live ball personal fouls "bridging" over from a scoring play and go back to A having to decline other live ball fouls by B. If a receiver manages to score in spite of DPI, was that really a "free shot" at A?
The thing is with NFHS rules, not everything in Rule 9 that's 15 yards is a personal foul. For example, you would think if the defense illegally blocks below the waist on a TD run, you'd want that to carry over. But, it's not a personal foul in NFHS rules. It's an Illegal Block Below the Waist (it's own foul). So instead of having officials memorize which fouls carry over and which don't, they just had them all carry over. I don't think it's a big enough of a deal to change, personally.
-
The thing is with NFHS rules, not everything in Rule 9 that's 15 yards is a personal foul. For example, you would think if the defense illegally blocks below the waist on a TD run, you'd want that to carry over. But, it's not a personal foul in NFHS rules. It's an Illegal Block Below the Waist (it's own foul). So instead of having officials memorize which fouls carry over and which don't, they just had them all carry over. I don't think it's a big enough of a deal to change, personally.
I agree with this. No need to start reclassifying or identifying particular fouls. If we are going to carry over, carry them all over. On the other hand, I’m not sure there was sufficient need to implement the carryover rule in the first place.
Of course, I wasn’t in on the discussion. Any of you guys have stats as to number of cheap fouls on scoring plays before/after the implementation of this rule?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
So instead of having officials memorize which fouls carry over and which don't, they just had them all carry over.
Makes sense.
As I am prone to say however, "the Fed hates exceptions, except when they don't"
-
Another thing to remember on the carryover fouls is only USCs and PFs can occur after the ball becomes dead....ie….AFTER runner crosses goal line there is a BIB or 5yd FM by either team, UNLESS the fouls qualify as PFs they didn't occur.
-
I disagree. A face mask foul by the defense on a successful field goal or try to end regulation can be enforced in overtime.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
It appears I was not fully explaining myself, that's on me. A Succeeding Spot Foul can be enforced into Overtime. See 3.1.1 H
-
I just came across this thread and need to point out that you can not have a "Carryover" Foul, as defined by 8-2-2,3, & 4, enforced on the first play of Overtime when the foul in question occurred on the last play of the 4th quarter. Only a Dead Ball Foul or Succeeding Spot Foul that occurred during the last play or after it can be enforced on the first play of Overtime. There is no way a live ball foul, such as a face mask foul, can be enforced on the last play of regulation into Overtime, or on a Try into Overtime.
The problem is with your last sentence. A live ball foul on a try CAN be carried over into overtime. Does NOT have to be a succeeding spot foul.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
The discussion on this 2009 rule centered around : "NO FOUL SHOULD GO UNPUNISHED" and cheap shots by the opponents when a player is about to score. If the opponents of the scoring team fouled before there was a change of possession, that foul would not be bridged over as the fouling player wouldn't have knowledge that the opponents were to score. Remember if the foul occurs after the score, it is waved off unless PF or USC (BIB,Holding & 5yd FM come to mind).