Quote:
|
Originally Posted by waltjp
KD, I didn't get the idea that you were being snippy. Please don't read that into my reply. This situation is a bit unique because of the time element. Under normal circumstances you'd certainly give B the option to decline A's foul and keep the ball. You'd then suggest that A enforce the foul against B. In this situation, when you put A at a disadvantage by forcing them to accept the foul on B.
I believe the rule is poorly worded and would make much more sense if they wrote, "If B accepts the foul on A the result is a double foul and the down will be replayed. B may choose to retain possession of the ball by declining the foul on A. If B chooses to decline the foul on A and retain possession of the ball then A will have the option to enforce or decline the foul on B."
Joe, I don't remember specifically discussing this rule during our pre-season but I'll look through my papers and see what I can find.
In summary, it makes no sense to put A at a disadvantage because B committed a foul on the final play of the game.
|
Ok, first of all, I have been under the false assumption that B was winning. However, if you let B keep the ball with clean hands but give A the final say then B's really getting the shaft. They are entitled to an untimed down to try and score and A having the last choice would be wrong. The game or period can't end on an accepted penalty and enforcing, without option, B's post possession foul fits that concept. Like someone said, if A doesn't want to be at a disadvantage then don't foul. Had A not fouled, they tackle B short of the EZ, they decline B's foul, game over. Let's just hope the holding flag was a good one.