Illegal kick?

[BoomerSooner]

I believe this is a situation under which the penalty would be "declined by rule". Here is my reasoning for why:

1. The illegal kicking foul would be enforced under the post-scrimmage kick enforcement procedure as it meets all of the criteria for PSK enforcement.

a. The foul didn't occur during a try, successful FG or extra period.
b. The ball had crossed the neutral zone.
c. The foul occurred prior to the end of the kick.
d. B would be next to snap the ball.

2. Under this enforcement, the situation is treated as though B was in possession of the ball at the time of the foul. As such the foul would not cause them to lose possession of the ball.

3. Under PSK enforcement, the post-scrimmage kick spot would be the basic spot and the penalty enforced from that spot. This point is more for informative purposes and not material to my line of thinking here.

4. Typically an untimed down would be required following an accepted penalty, however we have 2 scenarios that could follow and both of which show why the penalty would be declined by rule.

a. B is trailing A - an untimed down would benefit B, and not only would it be counter-intuitive to "reward" B for the illegal kick, A would without fail decline the penalty knowing the result is game over.
b. A is trailing B (the situation outlined in the OP) - while an untimed down would force B to snap the ball, I believe there isn't any intent to require B to snap the ball under these circumstances.

The aspect of this that I'm missing is the rule reference that doesn't require B to snap the ball on an untimed down. I'm pretty sure it is in there somewhere, but withstanding being wrong on that point, I think this outlines why the penalty is declined by rule in this case.

[Legacy Zebra]

If you're going to say that it is declined by rule, you better be able to point to that rule. There are only two situations in the NCAA code where a penalty is declined by rule. Those are on a try and in overtime. This is simple PSK enforcement and extending the period because of an accepted live ball foul.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Legacy Zebra

If you're going to say that it is declined by rule, you better be able to point to that rule. There are only two situations in the NCAA code where a penalty is declined by rule. Those are on a try and in overtime. This is simple PSK enforcement and extending the period because of an accepted live ball foul.

I don't have any problem with being wrong here. I left my interpretation open to correction and have thus been corrected. I based my assessment, in part, on the fact that I've never seen a period extended by an untimed down that was followed by the team snapping the ball just kneeling to end the game. I've seen teams kneeling during an untimed down to send a game to extra periods, but never to outright end the game during an untimed down.

Furthermore, I don't intend this to be argumentative or confrontational, but the two situations you provide aren't the only two instances in which a penalty is declined by rule. All fouls, other than personal fouls or USC fouls, by the non-scoring team during a down that ends a touchdown are declined by rule.

[jTheUmp]

Originally Posted by Legacy Zebra

If you're going to say that it is declined by rule, you better be able to point to that rule. There are only two situations in the NCAA code where a penalty is declined by rule. Those are on a try and in overtime. This is simple PSK enforcement and extending the period because of an accepted live ball foul.

There's another situation in NCAA where penalties are declined by rule... on a touchdown scoring play when the foul wasn't a PF or UNS.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

I believe this is a situation under which the penalty would be "declined by rule". Here is my reasoning for why:

1. The illegal kicking foul would be enforced under the post-scrimmage kick enforcement procedure as it meets all of the criteria for PSK enforcement.

a. The foul didn't occur during a try, successful FG or extra period.
b. The ball had crossed the neutral zone.
c. The foul occurred prior to the end of the kick.
d. B would be next to snap the ball.

2. Under this enforcement, the situation is treated as though B was in possession of the ball at the time of the foul. As such the foul would not cause them to lose possession of the ball.

3. Under PSK enforcement, the post-scrimmage kick spot would be the basic spot and the penalty enforced from that spot. This point is more for informative purposes and not material to my line of thinking here.

4. Typically an untimed down would be required following an accepted penalty, however we have 2 scenarios that could follow and both of which show why the penalty would be declined by rule.

a. B is trailing A - an untimed down would benefit B, and not only would it be counter-intuitive to "reward" B for the illegal kick, A would without fail decline the penalty knowing the result is game over.
b. A is trailing B (the situation outlined in the OP) - while an untimed down would force B to snap the ball, I believe there isn't any intent to require B to snap the ball under these circumstances.

The aspect of this that I'm missing is the rule reference that doesn't require B to snap the ball on an untimed down. I'm pretty sure it is in there somewhere, but withstanding being wrong on that point, I think this outlines why the penalty is declined by rule in this case.

You're way overthinking this, Boomer.

In both NFHS and NCAA when a live ball foul is accepted and the penalty does not involve a loss of down, the period will be extended for one play if time expired during the down.

Tony wouldn't this be a PSK foul in NFHS?

[whitehat]

Tony wouldn't this be a PSK foul in NFHS?

I'm not Tony but . . . Upon further review I am thinking this may be a PSK In NFHS. It meets all the criteria:
1. Foul was by the return team (B)
2. Kick goes beyond the ENZ
3. Foul occurred between the snap and the end of the kick.
3. K/A would not be next to put the ball in play.

In this case we would enforce the 15 yard penalty from the end of the kick (the legal one) and B's ball 1/10

Am I missing something here?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

The aspect of this that I'm missing is the rule reference that doesn't require B to snap the ball on an untimed down. I'm pretty sure it is in there somewhere,

I think you're looking for 5-1, which refers to a series of downs as being awarded a team. If it's awarded, then it may be declined.

Back when the try was described as awarded, it too could be declined. However, now NCAA & Fed rules say a team "shall" put the ball in play in those situations.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I think you're looking for 5-1, which refers to a series of downs as being awarded a team. If it's awarded, then it may be declined.

Back when the try was described as awarded, it too could be declined. However, now NCAA & Fed rules say a team "shall" put the ball in play in those situations.

If I remember correctly, wasn't the change made in response to teams electing to not even attempt a try once the clock had expired due to the possibility that B could, if the margin was 1 or 2 points, win or tie the game on a returned try attempt? If so, this reasoning would logically extend to the OP and show where I was wrong.

Not to go too far down another path, but if the margin of the score 20 points instead of 2 points, would the enforcement change since the probability of A winning on a colossal mistake from B goes from minuscule down to 0% due to the greater difference in score? My hope is that A won't want any part of the untimed down and declines the penalty, but based on this thread and further reading, I think it is up to A to decline it. I could only find that a try attempt is not attempted if the points will not affect the outcome of the game. Since this isn't a try attempt, the ball would have to be put in play if the penalty is accepted even if the score differential is 20 or 50 points.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by BoomerSooner

If I remember correctly, wasn't the change made in response to teams electing to not even attempt a try once the clock had expired due to the possibility that B could, if the margin was 1 or 2 points, win or tie the game on a returned try attempt?

No, because Fed has "shall" too (w/o 2-way scoring on the try), & NCAA made that change before 2-way try scoring was instituted. I couldn't say for sure right now, but I think the wording changed in the 1930s.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by Welpe

There's no exception for the score. Team A would have to decline the penalty.

Thank you for confirming my understanding of this. From a game management perspective, would you emphasize to A that accepting the penalty isn't going to have any impact on the game if it is a blow out or do you just let it go? Obviously in a close game there is always a chance of a fumbled snap or something goofy that could allow A to score to tie or win, but in a blowout I'd hate for that "something goofy" to result in an injury if the play isn't going to impact the outcome of the game.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, because Fed has "shall" too (w/o 2-way scoring on the try), & NCAA made that change before 2-way try scoring was instituted. I couldn't say for sure right now, but I think the wording changed in the 1930s.

Clearly I've been grasping for straws to try to align NCAA rules with having never observed a team leading in the score snap the ball during an untimed down to extend the 4th quarter (other than a try attempt). I appreciate the explanation.

[Welpe]

In all reality, I'd probably decline the penalty for them without giving them an option. But technically they have an option. I can't see any coach worth a spit wanting to accept that when up by 20 and playing a meaningless down.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

In all reality, I'd probably decline the penalty for them without giving them an option. But technically they have an option. I can't see any coach worth a spit wanting to accept that when up by 20 and playing a meaningless down.

No, but a mean coach might do it to clear the bench to stand on the field & watch the other team take a knee. "Now you can't say I never put you in, har, har."