Did anyone get the Aug. edition of Referee? There's a case play on page 18 that has me a bit confused. I usually take their case plays as gospel but I'm not so sure this time....

"Play:

With 1 second remaining in the 4th quarter, team A trails,7-6. Team A has the ball, 4th and 10 on the 50 yardline. QB A1, finding no open receiver, decides to run. A1 scrambles and advances to team B's five yardline. Realizing he will not make the end zone, he throws a desperation forward pass. Ineligible A2 catches the ball in team B's end zone.

Ruling:

(NFHS) Team A is guilty of an illegal forward pass. If the penality is accepted, it is 5 yards enforced from the spot of the pass. The penalty also includes a loss of down. Because the foul occurred on the last timed down of a period, team B wil run one play from its own 10 yardline. Note that team A cannot be flagged for offensive pass interference because that penalty only applies to legal forward passes."

My interpretation:

I believe A still has the ball for an untimed down. A has made the line to gain after enforcement and the loss of down is of no significance. If the foul had been declined it would be a TD so B wouldn't choose that. So, I have A for an untimed down 1st and Goal at the 10.

Actually, I thought I read this before so if there's a post out there mentioning this please direct me to it. But more importantly, is the ruling wrong or am I missing something???

Ljudge,

I believe you are correct. It would be A's ball since they gained the LTG.

It seems they make an error every now & then on these case plays.

ljudge...I'm <u>certain</u> you're correct! At least they got one thing right...A cannot be guilty of OPI.

Hey fella's...

What does the NCAA answer say and what are the rule references? We are thinking that in NCAA the game is over. It can't be a touchdown, since the pass is illegal. So if B declines, we are thinking that it would be A's ball at the spot of the illegal pass, but aren't sure.

Thanks
UE

REPLY UE, it says... "NCAA rules agree except that, ordinarily, A2 would be guilty of illegal touching. However, illegal touching only applies to a legal forward pass (3-3-2a; 7-3-2a; 7-3-3)"

Once again Referee screws the pooch
 

Once again Referee supplies the wrong answer to their own play. It is funny that they provided this play as an example to accompany their own article <b>"RULE 5: THE FORGOTTEN RULE!" </b>
Why is it funny you ask?
Because the answer to this play is found in <b>Rule 5.</b> Specifically 2004 NFHS 5-2-5. Also see 2004 NFHS Case Book 5.2.2 SITUATION B

The proper ruling on this play is as follows:
The only foul on this play is an Illegal Forward Pass by A.
Therefore;
B can deline the penalty and the result of the play is a touchdown for A, Final Score A12 - B7 and Game Over.
OR,
B can accept the A foul, the five yard penalty places the ball on the B10 yard line and the period is extended for one untimed down. The down and distance is first and goal for A. (No clock - untimed down)
<i>My crystal ball says the likely final score will be: A9 - B7</i>

Remember: <i>The loss of down part of the penalty has no significance since the succeeding spot is beyond the line to gain and a new series is awarded.</i>

<b>Message to ljudge:</b>
1) Don't believe everything printed in REFEREE Magazine. Their proofreaders have gone down hill and in this case <b>their incorrect ruling effected the outcome of a game.</b>

<b>Message to Uncle Ernie:</b>
I believe the result is exactly the same in NCAA. I will have to reasearch to find the correct rule and AR.

[Edited by KWH on Jul 23rd, 2004 at 11:51 AM]

So A2 would only be flagged for ineligable downfield, IF the pass had been legal? NFHS 7-5-6.

If the pass had been legal you would have OPI as well.

BTW - I sent an e-mail to Referee and they got back to me indicating this was incorrectly published. It's no biggie. The guy was pretty good about it.

You are correct
 

You can not have an ineligible down field on a running play. NFHS 7-5-6
You can not have pass interference on a running play. NFHS 7-5-7
The only thing you can have then is an illegal forward pass which is enforced from the end of the run / spot of the foul. NFHS 7-5-2b
The loss of down aspect of his penalty is of no significance as the line to gain has still been reached following enforcement! NFHS 5-2-2

Result of the play: A gets a chance to win the game by commiting a foul!!!

FYI - This situation was addressed at the NFHS Rules Committee meeting in January. A proposed change was to make the Loss of Down aspect enforceable in this situation. It was voted down by the members because they way this particlar proposal was written it would effect other situations other than this one. The rule change proposer noted that "in the south" coaches are teaching this move to players!
While it did not pass this time around, it was however, made clear to many members that this is a big hole in the rules. I expect to see it addressed again!

FYI - REFEREE Magazine (Jeff Stern) has admitted today via a telephone call they "kicked" the call on this play and they will be printing a correction in a future issue!



[Edited by KWH on Jul 23rd, 2004 at 03:37 PM]

Let me give you another scenario...one in which A does not have to foul.

Twelve seconds left in the game...3rd and 10 at mid-field. A is down by two with no more timeouts. Instead of a long "Hail Mary" pass, or even a pass to the sidelines (like everyone expects), A1 throws underneath the coverage to A2 at B's 25 in the middle of the field. A2, with only three seconds left, deliberately throws the ball slightly backwards and out-of-bounds at the 28.

The clock legally stops and the offense gets 1st & 10 from the 28.

It's still A's ball
 

The loss of down part of the penalty has no significance since the succeeding spot is beyond the line to gain and a new series is awarded.

NFHS Casebook 5.2.2 pg 39

Chiefgil, I think you missed the fact that it wasn't a forward pass. No penalty here, it is simply A's ball where it went OOB.

How would that work..?
 

So are you saying it would be second down..? In this situation, I can't see that it would be much of a deterrent... It would be analogous to spiking the ball...

BTW: Is this handled the same way in the NFL..? Or do they have some mechanism for ensuring that this doesn't happen..?

Re: How would that work..?
 

I'll respond to PiggSkin's question regarding NFL rules in the above situations. A backward pass going out of bounds during the last two minutes of either half stops the clock, however, the clock is restarted with the ready for play. Additionally, a team is not permitted to conserve time inside of one minute by committing several acts, two of which are an illegal forward pass thrown from beyond the line and a backward pass out of bounds. The penalty is loss of five yards, plus, since these fouls are committed by the offense, 10 seconds are run off the game clock and the clock starts on the ready for play. If less than 10 seconds remain in the half the game is over. If the offense has timeouts left they may use it in lieu of the 10 second runoff.

Re: How would that work..?
 

NO!
Starting a series on 2nd and 10 is part of the issue, was included in the rules discussion, and assisted in getting this proposal defeated.
The proposed rule change allowed the Referee to include a loss of down to the penalty in this situation. The intent of the proposer was not to allow A another play and because of the loss of down would end the game. It was voted down because it would not fit and would cause confusion. (Looks like they were correct.)
Again, the proposers intent was not to allow A the opportunity to gain by fouling. <b>Which IS a good intent!</b>
While I would think all of us on this forum agree this is a hole in the rules since A is allowed to win the game by fouling, the rule proposed this time may have repaired this problem while creating seven others.
If any of you can think of a way to resolve this <i>(10 second runoff for A fouls in the last one minute of a half (with clock on the ready) seems to resolve it)</i> I would suggest you propose it to your state office for submission to the NFHS.

Re: Re: How would that work..?
 

### it would be simple, any foul by team-A accepted or not and time has expired... GAME OVER.
Unfortunately, this would have to be called an exception.

That would work, but I think that unfairly penalizes "legitimate" penalties... For example, if A holds on a field goal as time expires, the game would be over... I know that's how the NFL does it, but I prefer the notion of the game not ending on an accepted penalty...

I would prefer broadening the powers under 3-7-3 to allow the referee the option of not allowing the untimed down if he thinks the penalty was committed solely for the purposes of extending the game...

Well, we could always add "and scores by the fouling team are cancelled". Now wouldn't that cause some controversy.....hahaha

PiggSkin...a very logical approach to solving such a problem. I believe you mean 3-6-3 and I agree. I was thinking on similar lines. There should be no reason why the referee couldn't invoke such a rule especially since it's obvious which (I believe) the case play even states. Sounds like a good suggestion for a rules change.

3-6-3 only authorizes R to start or stop the clock with the ready. With 2 seconds on the clock, there is still a chance A can snap the ball, the QB legally spike it (stopping the clock) and still have a shot for one final play. If the QB was smart enough to throw an illegal pass to stop the clock - he would certainly be smart enough to have the offense lined up and ready to stop the with the clock immediately after the ready. The more time remaining the greater his chances.

Taking 10 seconds off the clock would reduce the possibility but not eliminate it - what if there were 12 seconds remaining? Short of changing a fundamental (No foul causes loss of the ball) and/or covering this situation under 9-9-3 (Unfair Acts) - I do not see a absolute solution - just things that reduce the chances of it happening.

If a kid knows the rules that well - let's sign him up. He will make a heck of a Ref some day!!

Well, if there were 12 seconds on the clock and the kid was really that aware, I would think they could get a legal snap off to spike the ball before time expired...

The more I think about this, this really shouldn't be that much of an issue for Fed rules... Mainly because someone has to catch the ball and end up with a TD for this to come up... And even if someone was smart enough to devise such a situation, then they should be smart enough to just pitch the ball backwards out of bounds...

Consider this play.
 

Score A7 - B8, 4th quarter
A's ball 4th and 7 on the B15. No timeouts remaining for A
Clock is running 12...10...9
A's field goal unit is hustling to get on the field.
Clock is running 8...7...6
A55, the long snapper, realizing his team will not get the play off before time expires, wisely bends over and picks up the football, then turns and faces the white hat.
R, U, and H all throw flags, blow whistles, and <b>STOP THE CLOCK.</b>
Clock is stopped at 0:03
Crew comes together and determines they have a <b>snap infraction,</b> even though crew agrees that their is no way in hell they would have gotten the play off before time expired.
U marches off 5 yards to the B20 where, (amazingly) the special teams unit for Team A is already lined up.
R gives signal for snap infraction, points to A goal, and correctly winds clock.
A55 immediatly snaps ball on referees whistle and A1 kicks winning field goal as time expires.
Final: A10 - B8

While walking off the field the B coach mentions in passing to the crew; "Golly gee fellas, I kinda feel like our team got a raw deal! Is that little series of events they pulled off really<b> within the spirit or intention of the rules?"</b> It looked to me like they had practiced all that stuff they did. What am I gonna say to my team?

How would <u>you</u> respond to these (legitimate) questions from Coach B?

There is no way you can respond to Coach B with an answer that he would be happy with. I would, however, avoid being in that situation by letting the clock run out knowing Team A could not legally get another play off. When Coach of Team A complains, refer him to Rule 1.1.6

Hey Bob, didn't you see the false start with 1 second left to go?
Since this is also not during the last imed down there will be no extension. And I bet we can signal and mark the ball RPF before they get there this time!

[Edited by Jim S on Jul 27th, 2004 at 07:02 PM]

Re: Consider this play.
 

Does 1.1.6 and/or 3.6.3 allow the referee to start the clock and prevent team A from putting the ball in play, in other words run time off the clock as you would to correct a timing error? Just wondering what other's thoughts are.

9-9-3
 

Maybe adding 9-9-3 penalty: the game may end; no replay

What do you think?

[Edited by tpaul on Jul 31st, 2004 at 02:35 AM]

Consider this answer!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jack015

Quote:

Does 1.1.6 and/or 3.6.3 allow the referee to start the clock and prevent team A from putting the ball in play, in other words run time off the clock as you would to correct a timing error? Just wondering what other's thoughts are.

Absolutely not!
<b>1-1-6 </b>refers to a: <b>situation not specifically covered in the rules.</b>
The only foul commited by A during the above play was a snap infraction. <b> AND,
A snap infraction is specifically covered under rule 7-1-3!!!
</b>
<b>3-6-3 </b> allows the Referee to start the clock on the ready for play. However, it is not applicable as by rule the clock was running when the dead ball penalty occurred so the clock will start on the Ready-for-play. And the term Ready-for-Play means the ball may be snapped when the whistle is blown. <b>If the officials were to start the clock and by some means purposley prevent A to snap the ball they would not be performing their duties in the correctly perscribed manner.</b> This course of action is not allowed by rule. Ready-for-play means Ready-for-play!

Now we get to <b>9-9-3</b>
A did nothing to justify <b> ...making a travesty of the game!</b>
Again, all A did is committ a <b>Snap Infraction!</b>
Again, the penalty for a snap infraction is covered in the rules.
Again, if we want to change the rules their are specific guidelines to change them.
While I feel a 10 second runoff may solve some of these issues, a 10 second runoff is not allowed under NFHS rules, therefore I will not implement a 10 second runoff. Others may feel they can start the clock and have the umpire stand over the ball. Again, you would be deralict in your duties if you caused this action to occur.
In summarry, if A fouls and gains an advantage (or a victory) because of it,<b> we are not in a position to attempt to bend the rules because we feel it will correct an immediate problem.</b> It is better to let the players decide the outcome and then file a game report outlining the specific rules issue with your state association.
OR,
Propose a rule change thru your state association.
<b>Don't take the law into your own hands, you are solving nothing and rather <u>YOU are now the problem!</u></b>

Re: Consider this answer!
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KWH

Quote:

Originally posted by jack015 Quote: Does 1.1.6 and/or 3.6.3 allow the referee to start the clock and prevent team A from putting the ball in play, in other words run time off the clock as you would to correct a timing error? Just wondering what other's thoughts are. Absolutely not! <b>1-1-6 </b>refers to a: <b>situation not specifically covered in the rules.</b> The only foul commited by A during the above play was a snap infraction. <b> AND, A snap infraction is specifically covered under rule 7-1-3!!! </b> <b>3-6-3 </b> allows the Referee to start the clock on the ready for play. However, it is not applicable as by rule the clock was running when the dead ball penalty occurred so the clock will start on the Ready-for-play. And the term Ready-for-Play means the ball may be snapped when the whistle is blown. <b>If the officials were to start the clock and by some means purposley prevent A to snap the ball they would not be performing their duties in the correctly perscribed manner.</b> This course of action is not allowed by rule. Ready-for-play means Ready-for-play! Now we get to <b>9-9-3</b> A did nothing to justify <b> ...making a travesty of the game!</b> Again, all A did is committ a <b>Snap Infraction!</b> Again, the penalty for a snap infraction is covered in the rules. Again, if we want to change the rules their are specific guidelines to change them. While I feel a 10 second runoff may solve some of these issues, a 10 second runoff is not allowed under NFHS rules, therefore I will not implement a 10 second runoff. Others may feel they can start the clock and have the umpire stand over the ball. Again, you would be deralict in your duties if you caused this action to occur. In summarry, if A fouls and gains an advantage (or a victory) because of it,<b> we are not in a position to attempt to bend the rules because we feel it will correct an immediate problem.</b> It is better to let the players decide the outcome and then file a game report outlining the specific rules issue with your state association. OR, Propose a rule change thru your state association. <b>Don't take the law into your own hands, you are solving nothing and rather <u>YOU are now the problem!</u></b>

Let it be known that I wasn't trying to "bend the rules." I was looking at a possible change in the rules to stop A from getting an advantage by committing a foul. Is that "making a travesty of the game?" It could be....

I do like the 10 second run off, the best. I was just throwing ideas around.

If the current play happened I would follow the current rules of the NFHS. If A happened to win, so be it.

It doesn't seem right/fair but you are right we can't just change the rules on our own during a game.

Message to tpaul
 

While I <u>was</u> responding to your post, I <u>was not</u> referring to you regarding <b>"bending the rules".</b>
Without being too specific I am concerned with the "tone" of the posts made above by <b>Bob Floyd and Jim S.</b><i>
Oops, maybe I was a little too specific!</i>
And yes, I would welcome any response from Jim S or Bob Floyd as everyone is entitled to their opinion!

Nuff said!!!

There was supposed to be a "wink" icon on that post. Somehow it never got there. I may have removed it when I edited the post. Sorry.

Now that I have been publicly flogged and tongue-lashed, I apologize for the "tone" of my post and herewith retract it. I certainly don't want to be "the problem". Open discussion of subjects is healthy but we should be careful to "tone" down personal attacks.

Re: Consider this answer!
 

KWH, your play situation is pretty similar to Play # 9.9.3 SITUATION A in the 2003 Casebook. (I'm in Michigan and we don't get the Casebook in even numbered years, but I assume the play is still in there this year.)

Here's the play:

9.9.3 SITUATION A: A is trailing by five points and has no time-outs left when the play ends on B's 3. The referee oes not feel there is any illegal delay in unpiling and that time will definitely expire before the ball is ready and A gets in position to snap. Quarterback A1 reaches into the pile of players and grabs the ball. He then throws the ball to midfield. RULING: Even if the referee imposes a 15-yard penalty for an unsporstmanlike act, A has accomplished its goal - the clock is stopped and it can get in position and be ready to run a play even though the clock will start on the ready-for-play signal. This situation illustrates when it is appropriate for the referee to invoike the unfair-act rule and handle the situation in any way that he feels is equitable. In this specific situation the referee should wind the clock and end the game without giving A an opportunity to put the ball in play. (3-6-3) COMMENT: The rule also gives the referee authority to take appropriate action whenever someone not subject to the rules hinders play.



What's your thoughts on this play vs the play you proposed?

I think they are the same play. A player intentionally fouls to stop the clock. I believe these are situations where the referee can invoke the "unfair acts" rule. I disagree with those who say the referee cannot invoke this rule unless the action isn't covered, but I'd want to be VERY sure that the reaon the player fouled was to stop the clock.

A good application of the rule.
3.6.3 allows the referee to start or stop the clock due to an illegal act to use or conserve time. It does NOT require that the RFP be blown at the same time.
We do the same thing several times a year. Someone will make an error and signal time out (normally on a mistake with the line to gain). We don't wait to wind the time back in for the RFP, we wind it (without a whistle) as soon as the error is known (and/or correct the time if appropriate). RFP is a seperate entity.
3.6.3 is, pardon the ezpression, an exception to the timing rules. Put there to cover just this kind of situation. To not allow a team yto gain an advantage by committing an illegal act.
Frankly I think it stands by itself well enough that the "unfairs act" rule isn't even needed here.