![]() |
|
|||
Here is the actual wording...
The underlined sections are the new wording.
Revise 3-3-3a as follows: There was a foul, other than unsportsmanlike or non-player or fouls which specify loss of down by either team and the penalty is accepted. In the latter case, any score by the team which fouled is cancelled. Play situation: QB A2 runs many yards beyond the line to gain as the clock runs out for either half. A2 realizes he will be unable to score, but sees A3 in the end zone. A2 throws a complete pass to A3. RULING: The half (game) is over and no points scored. "Loss of down" penalties will not extend a period, regardless of whether the down is a factor. While the wording may change slightly in its final form the intent is pretty cut and dry: "A" can no longer gain an extra play (and possibly win the game) by fouling in this manner. The trade-off (on a 4th down situation, "B" is not given one untimed down) is a small price to pay for "A" no longer to be given the chance of letting their all-state kicker attempt the winning field goal from the 9-yard line. If you disagree, I suggest you ask any coach that has lost in this manner!!! I would also expect some wording changes to last sentence of Rule 5-2-2 as the current wording currently conflicts with this new rule. And, perhaps, (but no likely) the Rules Committee will write a 4th down exception to this loss of down exception. I would, however, like to see them Rules Committee vote on BobM's suggestion that the offended team be given the option of whether to extend or not. Hey ya'all. It may take a few years to get the wording just right, but remember, We made it through PSK with a few bumps. Based on that we should be able to make it through this one...
__________________
"Knowledge is Good" - Emil Faber ![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
-LaxRef |
|
|||
Quote:
PS Bob M: Are you busy editing "Penalty Enforcement for Dummies"? If you are let me know when you're done so I can get another copy. It's the bombdiggity! |
|
|||
Quote:
Bob, Is it REALLY unfair to B? Would they have had an opportunity to have a play and win the game if A hadn't committed such a foul on the last play of the game? The change is to take away a situation where A can gain an advantage (score , or get another play) by committing a foul. It really doesn't take away an advantage for R. If there is no incentive to commit the foul there probably will be no foul of this type.
__________________
Jim Schroeder Read Rule 2, Read Rule 2, Read Rule 2! |
|
|||
Quote:
__________________
-LaxRef |
|
|||
It probably all should go the way of the higher level rules. The period can only be extended buy an accepted penalty against the team that didn't have the ball at the end of the period. Then there are no special exceptions for loss-of-down penalties and A can't "benefit" from their own foul. Perhaps we will get there in a few years.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Or even a better example: A leads by 3 points with 0:04 remaining in the fourth quarter. A, 4-10 from A's 4. A throws a pass into the flats at A's 8. Corner breaks on the ball and clearly has a perfect opportunity to intercept and take it in for the winning score. WR A88 pulls him down to prevent the interception. Pass falls incomplete. Clock expires during the down. According to the proposed rule, "Sorry B. The penalty for A's OPI foul includes loss of down so the game is over." Now I'll re-ask your question: "Would they have had an opportunity to have a play and win the game if A hadn't committed such a foul on the last play of the game?" Yep...probably. I understand completely why the rule needs to be changed (the play you cited). And it's perfectly fair in that case. But in the plays I cite, I think it's grossly unfair. My suggestion to the Rules Committee would be to offer the offended team the choice of whether to extend or not.
__________________
Bob M. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|