Quote:
Originally Posted by Theisey
Of course a play might have occurred.. unless we're talking a dead-ball encroachment.
It really doesn't make sense. Team-B could commit DPI, have a 15 yard-mark off against them, along with the another (for statictical purposes) a first down for Team-A and eight, nine or more seconds ticked off the clock. I'm not putting time back on the clock.. so a play did occur.
Nah... this really doesn't make sense. I'm for a change that eliminates the option to free kick on anything but a dead-ball foul against either teamm
|
I think I understand the logic of your complaint to where I can explain it a little better than you have so far.
A has the option of free kick or snap. They decide to snap, and during the down, B fouls. The nature of team B's play and their reason for fouling is entirely different from what would've occurred during a free kick down. So for instance, let's say it was DPI as in your example. No DPI could possibly have occurred had it been a free kick down instead of a scrimmage down. The penalty for DPI is meant to remedy a type of unfair play against forward passes. It's inequitable to then allow a free kick to be taken as a way of "repeating the down", when the conditions of the forward pass could not be duplicated.
Looking at it another way, once A first chose the scrimmage, they had no way to anticipate that B would commit a foul either before or during the down, and so they should not be allowed to benefit tactically by effectively deferring their choice of way to put the ball in play.
OTOH, the same could be said if A chose a free kick and then fouled either before or during the down -- that if the down was to be repeated, they should not be allowed to change the method of putting the ball into play to a snap, even if the original reason for the free kick choice was strongly dependent on field position.
Of course it would be right to say that no repetition of a down can ever recreate fully the conditions. Someone could argue that if DPI were called, a forward pass should be
required on the next down, but of course that would distort the conditions even more than just allowing another snap. I got into a long argument with Scott Taylor about
my "zeroth down" proposal for repeat-the-down penalties following CoP because we disagree over whether that or the current penalty administration comes closest to setting back the conditions to when the foul occurred.