Methinks we can....

[CT1]

Originally Posted by ajmc

When the defense has accomplished reaching the QB, or any runner behind the LOS without benefit of ANY illegal act, they are entitled to whatever yardage advantage they have legally attained.

"Reaching the QB" and "tackling the QB" are often two different animals.

Here's Rich's quote: "The only reason I tackle the QB is because I illegally grab his face mask. And I get the benefit of those yards." (emphasis added)

Do we know what would have happened had the illegal act not occurred? No. The offense might have made a significant gain. That's why the penalty administration in this case is considered a "gratuitous difference".

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

"Reaching the QB" and "tackling the QB" are often two different animals.

Here's Rich's quote: "The only reason I tackle the QB is because I illegally grab his face mask. And I get the benefit of those yards." (emphasis added)

Do we know what would have happened had the illegal act not occurred? No. The offense might have made a significant gain.

Of course the same could be said of the same foul's occurrence anywhere on the field. The offense might've made a significant gain from there, but what does the previous spot have to do with that?

You could change the rule to make it a judgment call on that basis if that's the concern. At a rugby match I saw a player reach out & make a neck tackle at midfield, upon which the ref awarded a penalty try, which is supposed to be given if absent the foul play a try would probably have been scored. I had my doubts about that, so I asked the ref & he said indeed that by his judgment of the situation (it was the wing on that side, who was outside the rest of the defense) if the tackler hadn't reached up with his arm like that, he would not have been able to make a tackle. (I still thought he could instead have gone low & grabbed a leg instead, which could as well be said in the case of the face mask grab Rich was referring to.)

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by CT1

"Reaching the QB" and "tackling the QB" are often two different animals.

Here's Rich's quote: "The only reason I tackle the QB is because I illegally grab his face mask. And I get the benefit of those yards." (emphasis added)

Do we know what would have happened had the illegal act not occurred? No. The offense might have made a significant gain. That's why the penalty administration in this case is considered a "gratuitous difference".

Is it POSSIBLE to tackle anyone, without first reaching them? "Reaching" any player is totally and completely separate from anything you actually do to a player you have successfully reached. If a DEFENSIVE player subsequently does something illegal at that point (where an opponent is reached) the illegal behavior is penalized EITHER from that spot, or if the fouled player continues to advance after the foul, from the spot where his advancement ends.

When an OFFENSIVE foul is committed BEHIND the eventual End of the Run, the NFHS ALL BUT ONE enforcement principle presumes that any yardage gained BEYOND/AFTER the spot of the foul is an "Ill gotten gain", and the enforcement is applied from the spot of the foul RATHER than the spot where the run ACTUALLY ended.

ALL BUT ONE does NOT apply to defensive fouls, so I'm not sure what your above reference is intended to relate to.

Under the NFHS code, the runner is entitled to any and all yardage he legally gained (without benefit of any fouling). NFHS:10-4-2 defines those instances where the "basic spot" (NFHS: 2-41-1) to be used for PENALTY enforcement is "the previous spot".

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to infer regarding, "gratuitous difference" and, to my understanding, NFHS does not consider, "things that might have been"(Thankfully)

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

ALL BUT ONE does NOT apply to defensive fouls,

Aren't they among the "all"?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Aren't they among the "all"?

You may very well be confused. It would seem "ALL, but one" is a concept directed towards, and relates exclusively to, Offensive fouls.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

You may very well be confused. It would seem "ALL, but one" is a concept directed towards, and relates exclusively to, Offensive fouls.

Nope, you're the one who's confused.

All-but-one applies to ALL fouls. All fouls are enforced from the basic spot with the exception of the "one" - fouls committed behind the basic spot by the team with the ball at the time of the foul.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Rich

Nope, you're the one who's confused.

All-but-one applies to ALL fouls. All fouls are enforced from the basic spot with the exception of the "one" - fouls committed behind the basic spot by the team with the ball at the time of the foul.

When all else fails, Rich, read the rule book;":Football Penalty Enforcement, NFHS 10-6 (page 80, 2nd paragraph):

"Enforcement philosophy is based on the fact that a team is given the advantage of the distance which is gained without assistance of a foul. It is assumed that the only foul which would give this aid is a foul by the offense behind the basic spot. Therefore, all fouls but this one, that is a foul by the offense behind the basic spot are penalized from the basic spot unless the spot is otherwise specified by rule. This one foul is penalized from the spot of the foul."

This discussion started referencing a player (presumed to be an opponent/defensive player) tackling by the facemask. The concept of, "All-But-One" applies EXCLUSIVELY to Offensive fouls

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ajmc

When all else fails, Rich, read the rule book;":Football Penalty Enforcement, NFHS 10-6 (page 80, 2nd paragraph):

"Enforcement philosophy is based on the fact that a team is given the advantage of the distance which is gained without assistance of a foul. It is assumed that the only foul which would give this aid is a foul by the offense behind the basic spot. Therefore, all fouls but this one, that is a foul by the offense behind the basic spot are penalized from the basic spot unless the spot is otherwise specified by rule. This one foul is penalized from the spot of the foul."

This discussion started referencing a player (presumed to be an opponent/defensive player) tackling by the facemask. The concept of, "All-But-One" applies EXCLUSIVELY to Offensive fouls

You have just posted the definition of all-but-one. The "ALL" is EVERY OTHER FOUL, both offense and defense.

The "BUT ONE" refers to offensive fouls behind the basic spot.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Sorry, but I have no idea what you are trying to infer regarding, "gratuitous difference" and, to my understanding, NFHS does not consider, "things that might have been"(Thankfully)

Under NCAA rules, a foul by the defense behind the LOS is penalized from the previous spot, regardless of the type of play (running or loose ball).

In NFHS, if the QB is tackled by the facemask & goes to the ground, it's a running play & penalized from the end of the run. If he passes or fumbles, it's a loose ball play & is penalized from the previous spot.

There's no logical reason for such a difference -- therefore, it's "gratuitous".

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by CT1

There's no logical reason for such a difference -- therefore, it's "gratuitous".

Even though I find it hard to understand the logic of the NCAA version of handling such situations, I presume they had specific objectives, they may have honestly considered valid, for arbitrarily depriving the defensive effort of the advantage, they honestly achieved, by causing the offense to foul BEHIND where play began to lessen the impact of the consequences earned by, and applied against, the fouling offense.

NFHS prefers consistency in it's handling of penalty enforcement, by establishing "basic spots", which are determined by action that occurs immediately prior, actually during, and after the down, as well as non-player fouls.

"Gratuitous" seems largely a matter of personal perspective.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Even though I find it hard to understand the logic of the NCAA version of handling such situations, I presume they had specific objectives, they may have honestly considered valid, for arbitrarily depriving the defensive effort of the advantage, they honestly achieved, by causing the offense to foul BEHIND where play began to lessen the impact of the consequences earned by, and applied against, the fouling offense.

We're talking about a DEFENSIVE foul.