CFO Quiz 1 Question #9

[SJ_2010]

Fourth and nine at the A-45. A25 is downfield to cover the punt, and the bouncing ball hits his leg at the B-15. As the ball rolls along the ground, B44 holds A66 at the B-35. At the B-10, B22 muffs the ball which rolls into the end zone where A25 recovers it.
a. If accepted, the penalty for B44’s foul is enforced at the previous spot.
b. Team B is awarded the ball at the B-15 due to the illegal touching by A25.
c. Both a and b are possible correct statements.
d. A25’s recovery results in a touchdown, and the holding penalty is enforced either on the try or the succeeding kickoff.
e. B44’s foul is governed by postscrimmage kick enforcement rules.
f. None of the above.
REFERENCES: 6-3-2, 10-2-3, 10-2-5
COMMENTS: The score does not count. The penalty for the holding foul is declined by rule, which leaves the illegal touching in force.

According to Mr. Redding the correct answer is B.

Contrast this with AR 6-3-2 IV

Team A’s punt goes beyond the neutral zone and is first touched by A80, then picked up by B40, who runs five yards and fumbles. B70 holds during B40’s run. A20 picks up the fumble and scores. RULING: The score does not count. Five- and 10-yard penalties are not administered on the try or the succeeding kickoff. Because of the illegal touching the penalty for Team B’s foul may be enforced, per Rule 5-2-4. The
ball belongs to Team B, either at the spot of illegal touching if Team A declines the penalty, or at the spot after the enforcement if Team A accepts the penalty (Rule 10-2-5-a-2).

Just trying to check my understanding of what makes non PF or UNS penalties enforceable by illegal touching of a kick during the down according to 10-2-5-a-2 when the result of the play is a TD by A.  The way I read it ONLY the small window of non PF or UNS fouls that occur after the change of possession are enforceable due to the language in Rule 5-2-4.  All other non PF or UNS fouls that occur before the change of possession are declined by rule and B would get the ball at the spot of the illegal touch.

This is the way I read it but I would appreciate the thoughts of others to see if anyone reads it differently.  Thanks. 

[TXMike]

Isn't 10-2-5-a a specific exception to 5-2-4? 

[SJ_2010]

Isn't 10-2-5-a a specific exception to 5-2-4?

Yes, TXMike you are correct.

Let me expand my post a question:

A 4/10 at the 50.  A8's punt bounces at the B-2 and is over the goal line when A88 bats the ball backward to the B-3, where B81 picks up the ball and runs to the B-20 where he fumbles.  A44 picks up the fumble at the B-22 and scores at TD.  During the play B7 commits a hold at the B-10 a) after the punt but before possession by B81, b) during the run by B81, including the fumble, c) after possession is gained by A44.  Ruling?

[Kalle]

A 4/10 at the 50.  A8's punt bounces at the B-2 and is over the goal line when A88 bats the ball backward to the B-3, where B81 picks up the ball and runs to the B-20 where he fumbles.  A44 picks up the fumble at the B-22 and scores at TD.  During the play B7 commits a hold at the B-10 a) after the punt but before possession by B81, b) during the run by B81, including the fumble, c) after possession is gained by A44.  Ruling?

I'd say, based on the RR's ruling on the quiz, a) 1/10 team B B-20, b) 1/10 team B B-5, c) 1/10 team B B-20.

[SJ_2010]

I'd say, based on the RR's ruling on the quiz, a) 1/10 team B B-20, b) 1/10 team B B-5, c) 1/10 team B B-20.

I agree with you Kalle.  On b) reference AR 6-3-2- IV supports the answer and on c) reference AR 6-3-2- III supports the answer.  For a) the only reference I know of is this quiz.  Does anyone else have a reference supporting that a) isn't previous spot enforcement?  Does this quiz reference now become as good as an AR or a NCAA bulletin play?

[Kalle]

I agree with you Kalle.  On b) reference AR 6-3-2- IV supports the answer and on c) reference AR 6-3-2- III supports the answer.  For a) the only reference I know of is this quiz.  Does anyone else have a reference supporting that a) isn't previous spot enforcement?  Does this quiz reference now become as good as an AR or a NCAA bulletin play?

Well, technically it isn't a valid reference, but the rules are vague on this, so I guess this does clarify that RR wants the 10-2-5-a-2 "exception" to only kick in during a running play by the non-scoring team.

[jg-me]

Basically, the way the rule is being interpreted, what we are avoiding is a situation where there is a non PF/UNS foul by the opponent of the scoring team such that we take a TD away from the scoring team but give the ball back to the scoring team.

[Morningrise]

I don't understand the rationale behind wiping out Team B's fouls against Team A's wishes and pleas.

I *do* understand the reason why non-PF/USC fouls typically get declined by rule on a touchdown play. The reason is *not* because there's no "end of the run" from which to enforce the foul. After all, many Team B fouls are enforced from the previous spot instead of the basic spot. The *real* reason is just because there is no strategic reason for Team A not to prefer the result of the play.

But in situations like we're discussing, there is a HUGE strategic reason for Team A not to decline the penalty, because they know they won't GET the result of the play.

That's what it means for enforcement to be "made possible by illegal touching of a kick." If declining the penalty would no longer be the perfect outcome for Team A, then there's no longer any reason for Team A to wish that, so the rule about automatically declining it should no longer apply.

So when we have an enforcement spot - whether that's a) the basic spot during B's run, b) the previous spot, or perhaps c) a beanbag where Team A fumbled due to a Team B face mask foul - why don't the interpretations consider the penalty enforcement to have been "made possible" in all three of those cases? Nothing in 10-2-5-a-2 says "this can only apply to fouls during Team B's possession."

And whatever happened to the principle that fouls take precedence over violations? That's true the other 99% of the time. Why should that principle get turned on its head just because the fouling team also gave up a touchdown?

[Kalle]

I *do* understand the reason why non-PF/USC fouls typically get declined by rule on a touchdown play. The reason is *not* because there's no "end of the run" from which to enforce the foul. After all, many Team B fouls are enforced from the previous spot instead of the basic spot. The *real* reason is just because there is no strategic reason for Team A not to prefer the result of the play.

If this is the real reason, why have the rule at all? There is rule 10-1-1-a saying that a penalty is accepted or declined, when the choice is obvious to the referee.