The Official Forum - View Single Post

Derock1986 · #59 (**permalink**) Tue Jan 21, 2003, 06:08pm

Quote:

Originally posted by mikesears

Quote:

Originally posted by nvfoa15
I'm amazed that a simple enforcement of dead ball fouls has caused such an uproar. In my 25 years of experience, dead ball fouls (and USCs treated as DB) have ALWAYS been enfored from the suceeding spot. Prior to 1997 (thanks Ed) the chains would be set and then the penalty assesed. The NF changed the enforcement policy (thus changing the order of events) to assess the penalty and then set the chains.

Mike Sears presented two plays that have the same enforcement. The first has the offense reaching the LTG and second they don't. Both plays are enforced the same way! Both DB fouls were assesed from the suceeding spot.

I don't have my rule book with me but I would guess that Rule 10 (Penalty Enforcement) might have a special enforement statement regarding DB penalties.

This is a great example of the necessity of rules knowledge; that, as an official, one needs to combine several rules/intrepretations to properly administer the game.

My point in the original point was that I was a bit confused and troubled by the wording of the rule. It sounded like a new series (i.e a first down) wasn't awarded to team A until every act during the down AND all dead ball fouls were considered. So because Team A commited a dead ball foul, they couldn't be awarded a new series until every action that occured was considered (including dead ball fouls). That is a way it could easily be interpreted.

Here is how I arrived at my initial conclusion:

Rule 5-1-1:
Each awarded first down starts a new series of first downs.
I translated this as "When a team obtains a first down, it begins a new set of four downs.

Rule 5-1-2:
A new series (see 5-1-1) is awarded as follows:
After a first,second, or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded ONLY AFTER considering the effect of any act during the down and any dead ball foul.

Here is how I translated it in my own words (intially)

On downs 1-3, all acts commited during the down and after the down are taking into consideration before awarding a team a first down. It is the dead ball stuff that is confusing by the way the rule is worded, (can we agree this is confusing if we simply read the words)?

However, casebook play 5.3.1C gives an example of a UC foul (penalized like a dead ball foul) where the ruling is different than my line of thinking and a football fundamental goes against it as well.

I would edit the rule as follows:

A new series (see 5-1-1) is awarded as follows:
After a first,second, or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded ONLY AFTER considering the effect of any act during the down. A dead ball foul may also advance the ball beyond the line to gain.

I might further put football fundamental II.2 somewhere in this rule. "Whether the next down will be first is determined at the time the ball becomes dead and after considering any act, except nonplayer and unsportsmanlike foul, which occured during (emphasis mine) the down."

I'd further change rule 5-3-1 to say (words added are in bold print):

The line to gain is 10 yards in advance of the ball's foremost point when a new series of downs is awarded. When a new series of downs is awarded, all dead ball fouls committed prior to the ready-for-play signal shall be administered before the line-to-gain is established. The line to gain then remains fixed until the series ends and a new series is awarded.

Sorry for the rambling post. Hope everyone can follow me. I am now firmly in the 1/10 camp (unless my High School Association Interpretter tells me something different )

I'll wait to see what your high school interpreter has to say. As soon as you find out, please update this post. Thanks!

__________________________________
But I'm only a youth official so what do I know.
Derock