|
I agree with you that there in no end of the run in any of these plays. I also think that NF never figured this one out. But here is my predicament. In the casebook of course it was on a loose ball play that did not get any where they went back with out the assessing the yardage and redid the down.
I also agree that if there had been a run the penalty is assessed from the end of the run. However the contradiction lies that in a loose ball play it is easy for a team to decline the distance if they thought it was in their best interest. If the team hadnt scored and where the penalty is assesed from end of the run, the ball would still be on the field someplace, or loose ball from the previous spot but they would have the ball. In the case of a roughing or PI they would have four new downs to chew up the clock.
I cant find any justification in the rule book to force them to take a touchdown because that still in tantamount to the automatic declination. I obviously cant find anything that says take it back to previous spot.
I just hope this play never happens or if it does NFHS figures it out and gets an official interpretation out there because with out one no matter what we do were between a rock and a hard place. Because any way we look at it with philosophy intent and wording, no matter decision we make we arent backed up by any rule or interpretation. It's typical of NF changing a rule to fix one thing and create something worse.
I can just see it now.... it's either the all but one, except for one enforcement spot or it's the automatic touchdown after the no automatic declination rule. Go figure I though rule changes were supposed to make the game easier. Gees what was I thinking????
|