Message to IAUMP and/or MJT :
 

Message to IAUMP and/or MJT:

Both of you had 2 USC against the coach of B.
Some may be confused, For clarification, what are the two individual USC fouls against the coach of B??

Re: Message to IAUMP and/or MJT :
 

Allowing a disqualified player to re-enter the game and the player is wearing illegal equipment. He gets nailed with both for sure.

By the book...
 

MJT, take a look at: <b>NFHS Rule 9-6-4e</b>

<i>Don't misunderstand, I am not saying the head coach should not be ejected, however, we must enforce the rules properly and as they are written.</i>

[Edited by KWH on Mar 4th, 2005 at 03:57 PM]

Re: By the book...
 

But we do have the right to give the coach an USC foul in this case. 9-8-1 (USC by nonplayers) says examples are, <b>but not limited to</b>... Now whether or not I bang the head coach with both those USC's may be depending on if the coach has been a jerk, or if I feel he knew the player had switched the jerseys and went back in the game. It is definitely justified to give the coach 2 USC's. As 9-8-1 says, that is not a list of <b>all </b>examples, and you could easily say you have one on the coach for the ejected player getting back into the game. It is his responsibility to be in charge of his players.

I see your point, but do you agree that we have the discretion under 9-8-1 to give the coach one as well?

After further review...
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by MJT

Quote:

I see your point, but do you agree that we have the discretion under 9-8-1 to give the coach one as well?

MJT, you make a very valid point...
After further review, I agree this could be UC #2 on the head coach and he is disqaulified.

I was going to send the head coach packing anyway, but by involking the "Unfair act" rule.

So here is my enforcment if I was ever in this situation.

1) Live Ball - Illegal participation on B12/B38 <i>9-6-4a, To have 12 or more players participating)</i>
2) Live Ball - Illegal participation on B12/B38 <i> 9-6-4e, For a disqualified player to re-enter the game.</i>
3) Unsportsmanlike Conduct on B12/B38 <i> 9-5-1b Using profanity...</i>
4) Unsportsmanlike Conduct on Head Coach B <i>9-8-1h Allowing players to use illegal equipment.</i>
5) Unfair Act - 9-9-3 Because, <u>in my opinion,</u> Head Coach B and B12/B38 (aka Gainesta38) <b>conspired to make a travesty of the game</b> by knowing allowing a disqualified player to reenter the game by changing his jersey, <b>both the Head Coach and the player are disqualified and ejected from the stadium area.</b> Also I am taking on an additional 15 yards.

Can you imagine announcing all of these infractions? Just for kicks try it in the mirror!

So...
1) The live ball IP (only one can be enforced) moves the ball from the 50 to the B35
2) The UC against B12/B38 moves the ball from the B35 to the B20
3) The UC against Head Coach B moves the ball from the B20 to the B10
4) The Unfair act penalty moves the ball from the B10 to the B5
5) Both Head Coach B and B12/B38 are ejected from the stadium area.

<b>Result of the play is 1st and 10 for B from the B5 and the 3rd period will be extended for one untimed down.</b>

I would write a letter to my assigning sectretary with a copy to the the state association along with a copy of the game report depicting how I handled the situation and why.

I realize that ejecting players is not supported by rule but I also realize that this is an extremly special circumstance.
I also recognize that some would feel that a forfeit is warranted and probably supportable.
<b>In 27 years I have yet to involk the Unfair Acts rule, and probably never will.</b>

This is just how I would handle this situation if I was dealt this hand of cards.

What do others of you think?

Re: After further review...
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by KWH

Quote:

Originally posted by MJT Quote: I see your point, but do you agree that we have the discretion under 9-8-1 to give the coach one as well? MJT, you make a very valid point... After further review, I agree this could be UC #2 on the head coach and he is disqaulified. I was going to send the head coach packing anyway, but by involking the "Unfair act" rule. So here is my enforcment if I was ever in this situation. 1) Live Ball - Illegal participation on B12/B38 <i>9-6-4a, To have 12 or more players participating)</i> 2) Live Ball - Illegal participation on B12/B38 <i> 9-6-4e, For a disqualified player to re-enter the game.</i> 3) Unsportsmanlike Conduct on B12/B38 <i> 9-5-1b Using profanity...</i> 4) Unsportsmanlike Conduct on Head Coach B <i>9-8-1h Allowing players to use illegal equipment.</i> 5) Unfair Act - 9-9-3 Because, <u>in my opinion,</u> Head Coach B and B12/B38 (aka Gainesta38) <b>conspired to make a travesty of the game</b> by knowing allowing a disqualified player to reenter the game by changing his jersey, <b>both the Head Coach and the player are disqualified and ejected from the stadium area.</b> Also I am taking on an additional 15 yards. Can you imagine announcing all of these infractions? Just for kicks try it in the mirror! So... 1) The live ball IP (only one can be enforced) moves the ball from the 50 to the B35 2) The UC against B12/B38 moves the ball from the B35 to the B20 3) The UC against Head Coach B moves the ball from the B20 to the B10 4) The Unfair act penalty moves the ball from the B10 to the B5 5) Both Head Coach B and B12/B38 are ejected from the stadium area. <b>Result of the play is 1st and 10 for B from the B5 and the 3rd period will be extended for one untimed down.</b> I would write a letter to my assigning sectretary with a copy to the the state association along with a copy of the game report depicting how I handled the situation and why. I realize that ejecting players is not supported by rule but I also realize that this is an extremly special circumstance. I also recognize that some would feel that a forfeit is warranted and probably supportable. <b>In 27 years I have yet to involk the Unfair Acts rule, and probably never will.</b> This is just how I would handle this situation if I was dealt this hand of cards. What do others of you think?

I like yours, but you could also say the following. We have a sh**load of fouls on the play. After enforcement it is 1-10 at the 5 for an untimed down, and a player and coach were ejected.

Little known facts
 

Did you know that in the Great state of Idaho, S**tload is still an official unit of measurement?

Well I will be the one to say it and maybe mix things up again.

Does B12/B38 entering the field during the play to yell at U equate to him participating? By the description of the play the U was about 25 yards behind the play. When B12/B38 entered to vent his frustrations at U I think you can argue that he did not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play. (I am using a comment from the Case Book above 9.6.1 for Illegal Participation Comment 7. The rest of you are using Comment 8 as the basis of your ruling.) This then is a live-ball, non-player foul and the penalty is assessed at the succeeding spot. Using this ruling there are not two live-ball fouls because B12/B38 did not reenter the game. Thus all of the penalties would be enforced on the try, all 50 yards of them as I see it, and the period would be over.

9-6-4-e...It is illegal pariticipation for a disqualified player to re-enter the game. It was determined after the play was over and during penalty enforcement that B12/B38 had been ejected earlier in the game.

You have a point, but technically, when he communicates with an official, he becomes a player (2-30-15). Now it does not say how he communicates just that he does, so when he cusses at the official he is communicating, so the disqualified player has reentered the game.

2005 Rules
 

Message to Warrenkicker:

Your question is indeed a good one!
My original question was a loaded question and you are the only one that "caught" the load! Note that in my original post I ask, <b>" What penalties have occured and how are they enforced under 2005 NFHS rules? </b>
Because in 2005 (or effective when the new rule book comes out) the rule you refer to has been changed.
<b>If a substitute comes on to the field during a down it is now (2005) a live ball ILLEGAL PARTICIPATION foul.</b>
This change requires several revisions in the NFHS rules one of which will be the penalty portion of 3-7-1, The penalty portion of this rule will now indicate Illegal Participation.
Like it or not the Rules Committee felt they were simplifing the rule and making a statement,<b> If he comes on the field, he participated! </b>
It no longer matters if he influenced the play or not. Thus, the judgement has been removed from this act. It will now always be illegal participation enforced under the all-but-one principal.

You gotta love committees!!!




[Edited by KWH on Mar 9th, 2005 at 02:54 PM]

Re: 2005 Rules
 

Dang KWH, you need to make it more obvious than just saying 05 rules, remember, we don't read very well. :) I never thought to look at the NF website to see if any new rules would have a factor on your question. I bet we wouldn't have missed it after the new rule books come out. Good question!!!!