|
Thu Oct 07, 2004, 10:35pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
This keeps bugging me.
1st and 10. After an incomplete passes, an USC is thrown on each team. The first occured on B. Do we mark off the foul on B and give A a first down since they crossed the 10 yards to gain, or do we wait until all USCs have been enforced? 
|
|
Thu Oct 07, 2004, 10:45pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
The first and 10 is given. The chains are not set because the ready for play hasn't been given. In your example, the penalities have no effect. It ends up 1st and 10 at the same spot.
If your example were 2nd and 10, then it would change it to 1st and 10 at the same spot. All this is assuming no half the distace measurements were involved.
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 06:52am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 08:09am
|
|||
|
|||
|
If, at any time when assessing dead-ball or USC penalties, the ball passes the line-to-gain it will be a first down and 10. The chains will be reset after all penalties are assessed.
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 08:43am
|
|||
|
|||
|
So let's say it's 1st and 10 from the 50. A throws an incomplete pass (2nd and 10). After the play, an USC is thrown on each team--the first on B. We walk 15 yards off against B to the 35, but since this is past the LTG we give A a first down. Then we assess the 15 yards against A but bring the chains back with them.
1st and 10 from the 50. Is this correct? Me and a crewmate were arguing this situation yesterday, and he was saying that you would not award A a first down unless it had been gained after all dead ball fouls had been enforced.
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 09:00am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't AGREE with it... but from everything I've read in the last 3 years on this board regarding FED enforecment of this, this is exactly what you have - 1st and 10.
The thing I don't like about this, is that it gives an advantage to Team A in every instance of offsetting PF or USC fouls after a play (assuming B got the 1st penalty). Doesn't seem fair (and I'm sure someone will say these fould aren't really offsetting, but consecutive, which I suppose is technically true). It just FEELS wrong. But by the book, this is the right way to enforce.
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 09:09am
|
||||
|
||||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 09:46am
|
|||
|
|||
|
To Waljp: by now, with all the comments given, I am sure that you know it is 1st and 10.
I see by some comments that some of you are concerned about fairness issues. The rules are written with fairness in mind but sometimes some of the cases have a bit of unfairness to them. If the NFHS were to attempt to be absolutely 100% fair the complexity of the rules would be increased greatly. An example of a rule that is on the books for fairness is the all but one principle. And that rule is complex and hard to master by new officials. Don't be judgmental about fairness, learn to get the rules down and apply them correctly. Another thought: If both teams know the rules, what is unfair about administering penalities as prescribed but the rules. If they know the rules and violate them, then it is fair to penalize them in accordance with those rules.
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 11:10am
|
|||
|
|||
|
In regards to the issue of fairness because A is gaining an advantage somehow, my first thought was, if B had not committed the first penalty would the second penalty ever existed? In most cases, I would think not. Therefore, if B commits the first act, he is paying for his actions of being the primary offender.
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 12:48pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
REPLY: You know that old saying, "Try to make something idiot-proof and some idiot will find a way to break it" I think the same analogy can be used with any set of rules and the issue of universal "fairness." Creating a set of rules that guarantees absolute fairness with no exceptions is sort of an impossible dream.
__________________
Bob M.
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 01:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
We ended up giving A a first down, but costing them 5 yards in the process. It was hard to explain, but the entire crew came together and decided it was the correct way to enforce. But explaining it to coaches wasn't fun at all.
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 01:36pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Fri Oct 08, 2004, 01:41pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Move those chains HL
We had one last week where A made the LTG: 1-10 for A. A gets flagged for USC, before the RFP.
We mark off 15 yards, move the chains, and mark the ball RFP. The opposing coach goes into a tirade about it being 1st & 10, and he wants a conference. "Coach, you don't have any TOs left" "I don't care, I want to talk about this" Of course, he did not win this arguement, and was subsequently charged with a Delay of Game penalty. Mark off 5 yards, 1st and 5 for A. "Why did you move the chains" "Because the foul occurred after the RFP. "What kind of stupid rule is that?" Yada, Yada, Yada
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Linear Mode
