That's the way it goes. I don't think B is going to be thinking "we should foul as well cuz then they will offset and we'll go all the way back to the PS."

NFL, the only thing is if there is a 5 vs 15 foul, only the 15 is administered.

OK. Just to make it easy let's just say equal yardage vs. equal yardage (eg: 10-yd penalty v. a 10-yard penalty). Does NFL go back to previous?

Yep!

How many other ways can we think of where B benefits by committing a penalty (other than the obvious of fouling to prevent a big play such as pass interference)?

Something about this is just grossly wrong! I can honestly say in my 19 years of football, I can't remember a situation like this where there is such an extreme and unjust effect of penalty enforcement.

Steve
Nothing is wrong here. If B had not fouled the penalty for A foul is enforced per each code. In this case the penalty is enforced from B’s 10. The lessen for team A is, if you want to keep all of the yardage that you gained during a play don’t foul.

Not true. The lesson here would be for team B to commit a foul and they come out much better than if they had not committed a foul. By fouling, the down is replayed from the original LOS. By not fouling, B loses all the yards A gained before their foul. So in this case, B is better off with "dirty hands" than with "clean hands".

In my opinion, Dale's point about "if A wants to keep all their yardage, don't foul" is the best point brought out.

Okay, I think everyone is missing my point. This not about A, other than they committed a foul. This is about B gaining an advantage by fouling. Let's start at the beginning and look at all the possibilities.....

Same play, long run by A, we'll say 80 yard run.

1- Only A fouls near the end of the run. A is penalized from the spot of the foul. End result is a gain of 65 yards.

2- Only B fouls (live ball). In the example given, yardage is tacked onto the end of the A's run. End result is a gain of 85 yards.

3- A and B foul. End result is to replay the down.

My point is that because of A's foul, the best possible result for B is to also foul. By fouling, B loses no yards on the play, and A is actually penalized for B's foul. I don't think I can be any clearer than that.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by stevesmith
Okay, I think everyone is missing my point. This not about A, other than they committed a foul. This is about B gaining an advantage by fouling. Let's start at the beginning and look at all the possibilities.....

Same play, long run by A, we'll say 80 yard run.

1- Only A fouls near the end of the run. A is penalized from the spot of the foul. End result is a gain of 65 yards.

2- Only B fouls (live ball). In the example given, yardage is tacked onto the end of the A's run. End result is a gain of 85 yards.

3- A and B foul. End result is to replay the down.

My point is that because of A's foul, the best possible result for B is to also foul. By fouling, B loses no yards on the play, and A is actually penalized for B's foul. I don't think I can be any clearer than that. [/QUOTE

We see your point, but ours is, if A doesn't like it, they should not have fouled in the first place. As some people say "them's the rules!"

How about the fact that if B holds A during a pitch, and they run for 50 yards, A has to decline the penalty cuz it would be enforced from the PS, but if they had held on a running play, it would be tacked on to the end of the run. That follows your same philosophy as unfair, doesn't it? So what do you do with that one??

I've always maintained that an easy way to fix this is to allow A to decline B's foul (or vice versa). Seems to me that you should ALWAYS be allowed to decline a foul by the other team. You would only do so, obviously, in cases where the outcome is better for you had the other team not fouled. You can do this on plays where you don't foul - why not on plays like this one?