View Single Post
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 11, 2010, 10:56am
Robert Goodman Robert Goodman is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,906
http://users.bestweb.net/~robgood/football/downzero.txt

Quote:
Originally Posted by stegenref View Post
I guess what I really want to know is...if you have a two yard gain on first down and then tack on a five yard face-mask penalty, why is it still first down? If the offense gets credit for the two yard gain, shouldn't it be second down? I've been told you have to "replay the down", but you're not replaying the down if they've gotten the credit for the two yards. Several people have told me this is true, but I have yet to get a rule / reference for it.
This has been true for a loooong time (and you know how long my time perspective is), so I feel confident in citing Fed 5-2-2 no matter how old the rule book. They inherited that from NCAA, which got it from pre-NCAA days. The only question on enforcement philosophy of any penalties against the defense since the series of downs was invented has been whether the down should remain the same number or a new series be granted. The logic is that if the defense stops the offense's advance by illegal means, the offense would still have been advancing the ball during that down otherwise, so they should get that distance, plus whatever the penalty's distance is, and keep the down -- unless you want to give them a new series, which the rules makers from time to time decide certain penalties should incur. The logic for penalties on the offense is basically the same -- that despite their own illegal play, they were still advancing the ball at or in association with the spot indicated.

The anomalies in the logic are fouls following change of possession or achievement of the line-to-gain during a down. Because it was decided a long time ago that the new series was conceptually awarded only after the ball became dead, rather than instantly during the down, there is no "down 0", so that keeping the down the same as it would have been actually rips an opportunity off of the offense. See link for discussion.
Reply With Quote