Quote:
Originally posted by mcrowder
Well, I disagree 100%.
If this were a 1st and 10 play that went only 3 yards, the LOD after the 5 yard penalty would make it 2nd and 12, correct? You're not replaying the down, so in this sitch, a free kick would not be allowed.
So make the play go 12 yards. Team A achieved the line to gain, but after the penalty it's 2nd and 3. LOD. No replay of down. No free kick allowed.
Back to the play in question then - team A goes more than 15 yards. 5 yard penalty and LOD, although since team A is still across the LTG, it's actually 1st and 10 again. Surely we are not allowing a freekick here after a LOD penalty is enforced against A, simply because the play before the penalty went more than 15 yards. This goes against the very principle of not allowing a penalty to HELP the offending team.
I believe the "LOD has no significance if..." part is to keep us from stupidly beginning a new series as 2nd and 10 after a penalty like this. (If the book didn't have this phrase, there would be some who would contend that LOD on a play like this DOES warrant a 2nd and 10 - since this is not what the framers wanted, they put in this phrase). It's my contention that this phrase was not meant to say we "replay the down" if Team A achieved a 1st down, which would in turn allow the freekick based on the other rules.
Your thoughts?
|
This has been a great discussion question and I respect the opinions on both sides of this debate.
6-5-4:
"ART. 4
The captain may choose to free kick or snap anywhere between the inbounds lines on the yard line through the spot of the catch when a fair catch is made or through the spot of interference, when a fair catch is awarded. These choices remain if a dead ball foul occurs prior to the down, or a foul or an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed.
The question is - does the phrase and the down is replayed. apply to both a foul and inadvertent whistle? Now I am certainly no English major, but grammatically the way it reads, I think it applies to both. The case play is the one that gives me a problem and where I disagree with some of you.
6.5.4 SITUATION: R1 signals for a fair catch beyond the neutral zone on K's 40. K2 interferes with R1's opportunity to make the catch. R chooses an awarded catch and to put the ball in play with a snap. During the down: (a) A1 gains 15 yards and the coach of B is charged with an unsportsmanlike foul; or (b) B2 commits pass interference; or (c) an inadvertent whistle sounds during A1's forward pass. RULING: In (a), the unsportsmanlike foul during the down does not give A another choice to snap or free kick. However in (b), A may snap or free kick following penalty enforcement. In (c), the down is replayed and A has the option to snap or free kick. (10-4-4a)
In (b), team A retains the option to free kick. But with DPI - we are not replaying first down, we are awarding a new series of downs. (5-1-1)
Each awarded first down starts a new series of four downs.
My deduction of this - the phrase and the play is replayed only applies to an inadvertent whistle. If that is true, fouls with LOD would not change As options. A comma after the phrase a foul would clarify it if that is the NF intentions.
Now that is my interpretation of the the rule. This is my opinion: I think any foul by A should cause the forgiet of A's option to free kick. And the way the rule reads grammatically contradicts the case play.
BTW The phrase a foul refers to a player foul. 2-16-2f
[Edited by dumbref on Jan 19th, 2006 at 01:03 PM]