NFHS Table 7-5

[smileyh]

Does anyone else think Table 7-5 in the NFHS Rules Book is incorrect in saying illegal touching is enforced from the basic spot?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by smileyh

Does anyone else think Table 7-5 in the NFHS Rules Book is incorrect in saying illegal touching is enforced from the basic spot?

Why do you think it's wrong? Illegal Touching involves a pass, which is a loose ball and NFHS 10-4-2b identifies the "basic spot" for such an occurrence as the "previous spot.

[smileyh]

The penalty is not always enforced from the basic spot. The penalty for illegal touching behind the previous spot is enforced from the spot of the foul.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by smileyh

The penalty is not always enforced from the basic spot. The penalty for illegal touching behind the previous spot is enforced from the spot of the foul.

There can be a difference between “basic spot” and “enforcement spot” when the foul is by the offense.

[smileyh]

Correct. So is the table correct when it says the enforcement spot is the basic spot?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by smileyh

Correct. So is the table correct when it says the enforcement spot is the basic spot?

NFHS 10-4-1 defines "Basic Spot"; "If a foul occurs during a down, the basic spot is determined by the action that occurs during the down." Which sounds like it may refer to multiple "spots".

Articles 2-7 further explains those multiple options.

When an Offensive foul alters the standard enforcement spot, doesn't that altered spot become simply a different "basic spot"?

[smileyh]

No, Rule 10-6 clearly distinguishes between the basic spot and the spot of the foul. It doesn't say the basic spot is changed to the spot of the foul.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by smileyh

Correct. So is the table correct when it says the enforcement spot is the basic spot?

Technically that’s incorrect. However, the enforcement spots listed in #1-3 of the table are absolute. In #4 (Illegal Touching), the enforcement spot could be either the basic spot or the spot of the foul. I believe the editor put “Basic Spot” for simplicity’s sake.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by smileyh

No, Rule 10-6 clearly distinguishes between the basic spot and the spot of the foul. It doesn't say the basic spot is changed to the spot of the foul.

Is there room for one more angel on the head of that pin?

NFHS 10-6 explains the "All-but-one" PRINCIPLE. In essence, explains the EXCEPTION "of a foul by the offense which occurs BEHIND the basic spot during a loose ball or running play is "enforced from the spot of the foul."

In as much as this EXCEPTION is applied ALWAYS, doesn't that mean it is THE "Basic Spot" ("this is the basic spot for penalty enforcement"- see 10-4-1) WHENEVER the EXCEPTION is applied?

[smileyh]

No. Rule 10-4 goes on to define the various basic spots and rule 10-5 gives us special enforcement rules. These are referenced in 10-6. Table 7-5 is an oversimplification of these rules. The problem is many officials use Table 7-5 as a reference. I think this could be easily remedied by splitting #4 in the table into 2 parts to avoid any confusion. Behind the NZ spot of the foul, in or beyond the NZ previous spot.

[HLin NC]

Basic spot is defined in 2-41-1. 10-4-1 clearly indicates "the basic spot is determined by the action that occurs during the down". 10-4-2 then tells us what the basic spots are.

The table is fine. You can't always read one line or sentence or article in the rule book to come up with a ruling. It may require a definition, a rule, and a fundamental.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by smileyh

No. Rule 10-4 goes on to define the various basic spots and rule 10-5 gives us special enforcement rules. These are referenced in 10-6. Table 7-5 is an oversimplification of these rules. The problem is many officials use Table 7-5 as a reference. I think this could be easily remedied by splitting #4 in the table into 2 parts to avoid any confusion. Behind the NZ spot of the foul, in or beyond the NZ previous spot.

Apologies to the "dead horse" we're beating. Isn't language (words) supposed to explain a rule, rather than trying to adjust the meaning of the rule to fit differences of opinion about the propriety of the language?

2-41-1:"The basic spot is a point of reference for penalty enforcement.

"ABO" is a consistent reference for a set of specifically defined penalties. Wouldn't the specific identification for the "point of reference for (THEIR UNIQUE) penalty enforcement be THEIR "basic spot"?