Has anyone noticed the change in rule 5.1.2b? There was nothing mentioned in the front of the book with the other changes. It used to say "After a fourth down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down, other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul."

In 2004 it says..."After a fourth down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down."

This has to be a misprint. This would mean that all live-ball nonplayer and USC calls could put the ball beyond the LTG AND have A remain with the ball for a first down. The case book however 5.1.2(situation e and comment) - page 38 has the ruling that is consistent with the old wording.

I happened to stumble upon this because I'm looking for the rule that supported the following situation.....

I believe that if an B player enters during a 4th down play and doesn't affect the play AND team A falls 2 yards short of the LTG, then I believe B still gets the ball after penalizing the 5-yard nonplayer illegal sub foul from the succeding spot (vs. giving A a first down).

It looks like they might have deleted it so that the rule didn't run over onto page 44. Space is very valuable in these books you know. :D

I think we all know that we can't apply the unsportsmanlike penalties before the awarding of a new series just like in 5-3-1 and 10-4-5.

This should have been marked as an editorial change but the intent of the rule does not change; in fact, the wording "other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul." is slightly redundant since 10-4-5 specifies the succeeding spot is the spot for enforcement for both unsportsmanlike and dead-ball fouls. However, the words "act during the down" should possibly read "live ball foul."

Quote:

I happened to stumble upon this because I'm looking for the rule that supported the following situation..... I believe that if an B player enters during a 4th down play and doesn't affect the play AND team A falls 2 yards short of the LTG, then I believe B still gets the ball after penalizing the 5-yard nonplayer illegal sub foul from the succeding spot (vs. giving A a first down).

This is a live ball-nonplayer foul (3-7-1 Penalty). The basic spot will be the end of the run. Being a live ball foul the penalty will be enforced from the end of the run giving A a first down.

Ed, please read the comment on page 38 (SITUATION 5.1.2E) of the case book and then tell me if you still think A keeps the ball after enforcement of the live-ball nonplayer IS foul.

It says in part "A must get a first down by virtue of the yardage gained, including any yardage or an automatic first down from penalties for PLAYER fouls during the down, or it is a new series for B..."

LJ, the rule hasn't changed, partner.

BBR: I totally agree with you and realize the rule hasn't changed. I was asking if there was a misprint because the wording has changed, yet wasn't noted. I wasn't to concerned about that more than I was about understanding the proper enforcement for an IS nonplayer foul during 4th down. Is my enforcement correct based on the comment in the case book is what I'm trying to find out.

It is not a misprint!
 

It is not a misprint.
The NFHS editorial committee decided it was wording that was not necessary and therefore took it upon themselves to remove it.
At the rules interpreteres meeting in Indianapolis last month it was made abundantly clear to the editorial committee that removing the language could cause confusion.
It was also suggested that they at least insert <b>"live ball" </b> (so that the wording was <b>...the effect of any live ball act during...</b>).
I agree with ljudge the wording is confusing.
However, believe BBR, the rule has not changed, AND,
you can bet it will be "reworded" in 2005.

In my humble opinion, some folks seem to think change is needed just for the sake of change.
I stay with the majority who feel,<b> if it aint broke don't fix it!</b>

-Nuff said

Understand the confusion. IS in the play you cited is a live ball-nonplayer foul and 5.1.2E Comment states only player fouls.

The foul is committed during a live ball period by a nonplayer. The foul is illegal substitution.

You are thinking it should be penalized as a dead ball foul since it is a nonplayer foul. However, 3-7-1 Penalty clearly makes it a live ball foul. All live ball penalties would be enforced before establishing a new line to gain.

Substitution infractions can only be penalized as dead ball fouls if they occur before the snap. After the snap they will be live ball fouls.

Re: It is not a misprint!
 

Why didn't they just leave it alone, we all understood it!

Actually, I was suggesting (from what I read in the comment) that it be penalized similar to a USC. That is, A succeeding spot foul, albeit 5 yards. In a situation where B taunts during a 4th down play B would still get the ball even though the penalty puts the ball beyond the LTG after enforcement.

I hope I'm not sounding stubborn...seriously. I'm not trying to be any way. Even more so because I have never seen a player run out during a down in about the 200 or so games that I have officiated.

Rule 2 puts nonplayer and usc together. (see 2.16.2e/f) 5.1.2B under the old wording puts nonplayer and usc together. So, why would we penalize different with respect to awarding a new series?

I guess I'll be quiet on this one. I guess I'm being a bit of a bonehead.

Thanks for all the input!

It doesn't matter. My point is, don't change anything about the way you've beene handling this play. When these things happen, our association discusses it. Then, we rue on it as we aways have and await the change in next year's publication.

Just like the rule change last year - a foul against A before a change of possession on a scoring play was still enforced. Our state director told us that this was wrong, that the rule was not published the way that it was approved, and a correction would be made this year. He told us the foul isn't enforced. Guess what? We have the correction this year and he was correct.

And actually, this isn't unusual. Quite often, the committee, or maybe the editor, takes it upon themsleves to reword a section and not include it in the editorial changes. Once it's published, questions start being raised and suddeenly, it's apparent why the rulke was worded the way that it was.

So I know it can be confusing but the best thing to do is just to ignore it.