5 yard tack on for fouls on a free kick

[James]

I had something come up in my first game of the season today, and wanted a bit of feedback from the group here.

Free Kick, A is flagged for Offside.
B-1 catches the ball and advances to B's 40. During the run by B-1, B-2 blocks an A player in the back at B's 30.

What is the penalty enforcement? For those in American, please base your answer on last years rules.

I have been unable to find a good example in the rulebook to support this scenario.

The offside foul is a 5 yarder than can be tacked on 'five yards
from the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team
B'
But they are both live ball fouls so do we allow the tack on, or do we force a rekick?

Thanks in advance for the guidance.

[Atlanta Blue]

Look at 10-1-4-ex 1:

When there is a change of team possession during a down, and the team
last gaining possession had not fouled before last gaining possession,
it may refuse offsetting fouls and thereby retain possession after
completion of the penalty for its foul

So it's up to B what's going to happen.  Then can accept A's offside foul, in which case the fouls offset and the down is replayed.  Or B can decline A's foul and retain possession after the Illegal Block is enforced against them.

So, B's ball 1st and 10 from the B20 (10 yards behind the foul), or they can have the down replayed.

[Diablo]

So it's up to B what's going to happen.  Then can accept A's offside foul, in which case the fouls offset and the down is replayed.  Or B can decline A's foul and retain possession after the Illegal Block is enforced against them.

A more accurate interpretation of 10-1-4 - Exception 1:
Team B has to make a choice first.  They can accept offsetting fouls, in which case the down is replay. If Team B declines offsetting fouls, then Team A decides whether B is penalized for the foul they committed. 

[Atlanta Blue]

A more accurate interpretation of 10-1-4 - Exception 1:
Team B has to make a choice first.  They can accept offsetting fouls, in which case the down is replay. If Team B declines offsetting fouls, then Team A decides whether B is penalized for the foul they committed.

Really?  If B says they wil decline A's foul and keep the ball, and you really going to go ask A if they want to accept B's foul?  If they decline B's foul, B gets the ball on the 40.  If they accept it, B gets the ball on the 20.  The down and clock situation are the exact same.

Some penalty enforcements aren't worth asking about.  This falls into the category of "don't ask, just do it".

For PRACTICAL purposes, the only choice here belongs to B.

[Diablo]

Really?  If B says they wil decline A's foul and keep the ball, and you really going to go ask A if they want to accept B's foul?  If they decline B's foul, B gets the ball on the 40.  If they accept it, B gets the ball on the 20.  The down and clock situation are the exact same.

Some penalty enforcements aren't worth asking about.  This falls into the category of "don't ask, just do it".

For PRACTICAL purposes, the only choice here belongs to B.

Yuppp
What if, B1's run ends at the B-10, instead of the B-40?  Or the original play occurs during a down in which time expired in a half?  Are you going to deny Team A the choice in those situations?
Some times if best to be RIGHT over PRACTICAL.

[Atlanta Blue]

Yuppp
What if, B1's run ends at the B-10, instead of the B-40?

OK, then the penalty will be enforced to the B-5, there still is no real choice.  The foul doesn't go away just because it happened in front of the basic spot.

Or the original play occurs during a down in which time expired in a half?  Are you going to deny Team A the choice in those situations?

Now you have added another element.  Am I ever going to deny A a true choice if one exists?  Of course not.  But in the original post, no "choice" existed.

But even in this end of the half scenario, if B has any sense at all, then A still isn't going to have a choice.  If B declines A's foul, then A will decline B's foul and the half will end.  And if B is stupid enough to decline A's foul, then A still doesn't have a practical "choice".

Imagine that conversation with A's coach:  "Coach, you can accept B's foul, where they will have the ball at their own 20 with an untimed down.  Or you can end the half."  Is there a choice?


4th and 1.  A is at the line in a long count.  B gets anxious and jumps offside.  Are you going to stop and ask A if they want to accept the foul?

A throws a long pass downfield, where B inteferes with the receiver.  The receiver makes the catch and runs into the end zone for a TD.  Do you want to ask A if they want to accept the foul?

Some times if best to be RIGHT over PRACTICAL.

Often, they are the same thing!


None of which gets back to the question James asked in the original post:  there in no "tack on" for A's foul.  Either B accepts and they offset, or they decline and keep the ball after the enforcement of their foul.

[Diablo]

OK, then the penalty will be enforced to the B-5, there still is no real choice. 

Oops, I left out a "small" detail - change of player possession.
Assume, B1 intercepts and fumbles at the B-40.  The loose ball is recovered at the B-20 by grounded B1.  B2 illegally BIB at the B-35 during B1's run.

[El Macman]

There are some situations where the choce is truly obvious, and soliciting the HC for his choice in unnecessary. The play under discussion does not fit that model.

With the "clean hands" element to this play, there is significant field position disparity between the two options that B has. While I might think ball possession is always top priority, I've seen coaches choose to repeat the down (offset) in nearly identical circumstances.

Unless the succeeding spot following the B penalty is beyond the B-20, B's choice isn't obvious. Even then, I'm inclined to let the coach make this decision.

As for A declining B's penalty, they'd only do that if the result of the play was worse than the penalty - it could happen - or they can force the end of a period by declining. Unless the end of a period is in question, A's choice should be obvious.

[Atlanta Blue]

There are some situations where the choce is truly obvious, and soliciting the HC for his choice in unnecessary. The play under discussion does not fit that model.

With the "clean hands" element to this play, there is significant field position disparity between the two options that B has. While I might think ball possession is always top priority, I've seen coaches choose to repeat the down (offset) in nearly identical circumstances.

Unless the succeeding spot following the B penalty is beyond the B-20, B's choice isn't obvious. Even then, I'm inclined to let the coach make this decision.

As for A declining B's penalty, they'd only do that if the result of the play was worse than the penalty - it could happen - or they can force the end of a period by declining. Unless the end of a period is in question, A's choice should be obvious.

I agree, you absolutley have to talk to the B coach regarding his options.  But post said that A is the one with no practical choce.  If B accepts the offside, A has no choice.  If B decides to decline the offside, there is no reason to talk to A, unless it is the end of the half.  And even if it's the end of the half, there still is no real choice.

What would you say?  If there's time left:  "You can decline the penalty and B will get the ball at the B-40, 1st and 10, or you can accept and they will get the ball at the 20, 1st and 10"?

If there's no time left: "Coach, you can accept the foul and let their offense have an untimed down from the 20, or you can decline and end the half."  Unless the ball winds up inside the 1 with no room to kneel down, why would any coach ever want to give his opponent an untimed down?

Do we really need either of those questions?  And THAT is what I mean by the practical answer: B is the only team that really has any choice here.

[El Macman]

Unless the ball winds up inside the 1 with no room to kneel down, why would any coach ever want to give his opponent an untimed down?

They are down by less than 9 in the 4th period. Their only hope is for a turnover and score (TD). If they don't elect the offset and repeat of the down in the extended period, their opponent declines the penalty - game over. Rare cicumstances, but possible.

[Atlanta Blue]

They are down by less than 9 in the 4th period. Their only hope is for a turnover and score (TD). If they don't elect the offset and repeat of the down in the extended period, their opponent declines the penalty - game over. Rare cicumstances, but possible.

If that was the circumstance, they why were they kicking deep to begin with?

And if they do accept, the offense will simply kneel.  Sometimes you just have to accept that you lost.

Which brings up something I have always wondered, but can't find anything that prohibts it:  is there anything that prohibits the QB from simply taking the snap with his knee already on the ground?  That way he is down the instant he possesses the snap.

[El Macman]

If that was the circumstance, they why were they kicking deep to begin with?

Don't know, don't care. Just discussing the 'possibility.' It could happen. As I said, a rare circumstance. Probably never happen. But we used to say an airborne player grasping a pass and throwing it forward to a teammate would never happen. Then it happened. Few would have ever thought a non-player would reach into the field of play and intentionally touch a live-ball. Then it happened.

Which brings up something I have always wondered, but can't find anything that prohibts it:  is there anything that prohibits the QB from simply taking the snap with his knee already on the ground?  That way he is down the instant he possesses the snap.

As for this question, no, there is nothing that would prohibit the receiver of the snap from already being grounded; thus, making the ball dead the moment he completed the successful handing, or catching/recovering the backwardly passed ball.

And, in a repeat of the down in the extended period, if A was ahead in score, they could/should probably do that. Team B's only hope is a botched snap, with a B recovery and advance for a TD. Highly improbable. But possible.

[Atlanta Blue]

But we used to say an airborne player grasping a pass and throwing it forward to a teammate would never happen. Then it happened.

And I was the Official Scorer of that game.  In meeting with Jon Bible afterward for an explanation for the scoring, one of his first statements to me was, "The more I think about it, I think we blew it."

I recorded exactly what Jon told me, but looking back, we were wrong:

 N 1-15 N50   Durant, D. pass intercepted by Karlos Dansby at the AU43, Karlos Dansby
               return 0 yards to the AU43, PENALTY AU IP 5 yards to the AU38, 1st
               and 10, AU ball on AU38.


By rule, Dansby should not have gotten credit for the INT, it should have gone to Dontarious Thomas.  To this day, Auburn's stats are wrong because of that play.