Little help

[Patton]

Originally posted by kdf5
The case book play you quoted says "the penalty in enforced from the spot of the foul". Since the spot of the foul is in the endzone, you have a safety. Actually the original post doesn't say where the penalty occurred but I believe by reading the post that the foul occurred in the EZ. Anyway, by enforcing from the spot of the foul, you are consistent, like Bob M said in enforcing per the all-but-one principle.

We got a little off track from the original thread, but if you look back you will see that I asked where did the BIB occur. If it occured in the EZ (which SouthGARef later said it did), then yes, we have a safety. If it occurred between the goal line and B's 20 then we would enforce from the spot of the foul. If it occurred at or beyond B's 20 we would enforce from B's 20. I think that covers it.

[kdf5]

[/B][/QUOTE]
Gonna go with Patton. In principle, B never brought the ball into the endzone, thus a safety should not be considered. The 20-yd line touchback scenario makes sense. Thanks for the rule reference. [/B][/QUOTE]

The basic spot is the succeeding spot...that's true. However, the enforcement spot is behind the basic spot (all but one principle) so you enforce from there and since it's in B's endzone you have a safety.

[refburn04]

I have to disagree on this one. Rule 10-4-5(d)...The basic spot is the succeeding spot: When the final result is a touchback.

OK, let's look at:
10-6 ENFORCEMENT SPOTS, ALL-BUT-ONE PRINCIPLE "Unless otherwise listed in Section 4 and 5, a penalty for a foul occurring during a play is enforced from the basic spot with the exception of a foul by the offense which occurs behind the basic spot during a loose ball play or a running play.This particular foul is enforced from the spot of the foul."

So it seems that "all but one" does not apply to
Rule 10-4-5(d). No safety, enforce from the succeeding spot.

As a basic rule of fairness we penalize the offense with all but one to negate the advantage gained by that foul.
If the offense is holding or BIB or committing other live ball fouls in their end zone they are preventing the defense of a chance to score a safety had they not been fouled.

So if B gains possession in the end zone and is downed there, there is no legal way for A to get a safety with or without being fouled.

[Patton]

refburn04, I understand what you are getting at and agree with your principal (and a few others on the board), but that is not how the NFHS sees it according to the casebook play (10.5.5)

[kdf5]

Casebook play 10-5-5 A says the foul occured at the 4 and the ball is in B's own endone after the INT. If this is the case then you go to the basic spot which is the succeeding spot (the 20). Since the spot of the foul is behind the 20 (at the 4), you go from the 4 to the 2.

If the penalty occurs in the EZ and the ball is in the endzone then it's a safety. Anyone agree?

[SouthGARef]

I personally see both sides. It ends in a touchback, basic spot is the 20. ABO enforcement, enforce from SOF. Since this foul is in the endzone, safety.

I also see the other side of the argument. B didn't force the ball into the endzone. The force that put the ball into Bs endzone was As pass.

It's a weird situation, and the guys around here are disagreeing. Wanted to get different opinions. Since we can't all agree on a definate answer, maybe there's someone up in the NFHS office we can ask?

[Texoma_LJ]

Originally posted by refburn04
I have to disagree on this one. Rule 10-4-5(d)...The basic spot is the succeeding spot: When the final result is a touchback.

OK, let's look at:
10-6 ENFORCEMENT SPOTS, ALL-BUT-ONE PRINCIPLE "Unless otherwise listed in Section 4 and 5, a penalty for a foul occurring during a play is enforced from the basic spot with the exception of a foul by the offense which occurs behind the basic spot during a loose ball play or a running play.This particular foul is enforced from the spot of the foul."

So it seems that "all but one" does not apply to
Rule 10-4-5(d). No safety, enforce from the succeeding spot.

As a basic rule of fairness we penalize the offense with all but one to negate the advantage gained by that foul.
If the offense is holding or BIB or committing other live ball fouls in their end zone they are preventing the defense of a chance to score a safety had they not been fouled.

So if B gains possession in the end zone and is downed there, there is no legal way for A to get a safety with or without being fouled.

I dont agree with this line of thinking being relative to enforcing the penalty.
The premise is that the defense is not capable of scoring on the play because of the penalty itself. The team in possesion could gain an advantage to run the ball all the way to the other endzone and score is just as feasible.
Secondly, rule 10-4-5 refers to basic spots, not the enforcement spot,
This play, in MHO, is no different than a BIB during a pass play that occurs in the endzone. How the ball got in the endzone is not relative, the team in possesion could have just as easily have taken a knee and solved all our problems.

[Edited by Texoma_LJ on Nov 2nd, 2004 at 07:59 PM]

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The way I read NF 10-6 is all related to enforcement spots. It seems to say that unless a special enforcement spot is specified in 10-4 or 10-5, then the following procedure prevails: Enforce from the basic spot or from the spot of the foul if the penalty is by the offense behind the basic spot. Since 10-4 and 10-5 says nothing about a special enforcement spot for this situation, then all-but-one enforcement should rule. Yes, 10-4-5 does talk about a 'special' basic spot for enforcement, but not about a special enforcement spot. Therefore, your foul--by the offense--behind the basic spot (B's 20) becomes a spot foul and results in a safety.

For those who are saying that they believe that the penalty should be enforced from B's 20, how would you handle the same play if, instead of B's foul occurring in the endzone, it occurred on B's 1 ?

[mcrowder]

Texoma - while I agree with everyone saying that this is a safety by the book, I disagree with your logic of what this SHOULD be. (IMHO, they should fix this loophole in the books).

Your logic is that this is just like a BIB or hold in the EZ during a pass play, and since that's a safety, so should this be. But the plays are different in one key way. On the pass play, the foul could very likely have prevented what would have been a safety, since QB was in the EZ on his own volition and had to exit or throw to avoid a safety. On the kick play, the foul could not have prevented a safety. Had the runner failed to exit the EZ, it would have been a TB, not a safety.

If we're talking about what this play SHOULD be (and not how the book is written), then this SHOULD be enforced from the 20.

[Theisey]

Originally posted by SouthGARef
I personally see both sides. It ends in a touchback, basic spot is the 20. ABO enforcement, enforce from SOF. Since this foul is in the endzone, safety.

I also see the other side of the argument. B didn't force the ball into the endzone. The force that put the ball into Bs endzone was As pass.

It's a weird situation, and the guys around here are disagreeing. Wanted to get different opinions. Since we can't all agree on a definate answer, maybe there's someone up in the NFHS office we can ask?

+_+ Who cares who put the ball into the EZ. The foul was in the EZ and that's all that matters.
Change the play slightly. Have B21 intercepting at the B-2 yardline and B88 illegal blocks in the EZ. Team-A didn't put the pass into the EZ, but the foul is in the EZ. Same result against B.

[Texoma_LJ]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Texoma - while I agree with everyone saying that this is a safety by the book, I disagree with your logic of what this SHOULD be. (IMHO, they should fix this loophole in the books).

Your logic is that this is just like a BIB or hold in the EZ during a pass play, and since that's a safety, so should this be. But the plays are different in one key way. On the pass play, the foul could very likely have prevented what would have been a safety, since QB was in the EZ on his own volition and had to exit or throw to avoid a safety. On the kick play, the foul could not have prevented a safety. Had the runner failed to exit the EZ, it would have been a TB, not a safety.

If we're talking about what this play SHOULD be (and not how the book is written), then this SHOULD be enforced from the 20.

My arguement is based upon the rule book as is... not as it should be rewritten. There is definitely a need to address this issue, but again, as written "it is what it is".

[mikesears]

Originally posted by mcrowder
... Had the runner failed to exit the EZ, it would have been a TB, not a safety.

Unless B then fumbled and A recovered. Then we'd have a touchdown for A.