Score tied 7-7, 0:01 remaining in the 3rd quarter, clock is stopped, 3rd and goal on the B-5 yard line.
Quarterback A1 throws forward pass that is intercepted 5 yards deep in the endzone by B1.
B1 returns the ball 105 yards and crosses A's goal line.
During B1's return, substitute B12 runs onto the field (at the 50 yard line) while wearing an "Amber eye sheild" and runs directly to the Umpire and shouts in the Umpires face, <i>"You dumb f**k, you can't take this one away from us can you!"</i>
The Umpire "guestimates" that B1 was on approximatly the A-25 yard line when B12 entered the field.
While the officials are discussing the penalties and enforcment A1 approaches the officials huddle and polietly informs the officials that,<i> he knows B12, his real name is Gainesta38, and he is the same player that the officials disqaulified in the first half for fighting, however he has apparently changed his jersey number from 38 to 12.</i> (The allegation made by A1 regarding B12/B38 is proven to be true.)
What penalties have occured and how are they enforced under 2005 NFHS rules?

[Edited by KWH on Mar 2nd, 2005 at 12:39 PM]

REPLY: I'm anxious to see others' responses to this. All I can say is I'd love to see the umpire's smile when he tells B12, "Oh yes I can!"

The coach allowed the player to come back onto the sidelines with a new jersey. This action combined with the total lack of self-control of the player makes a travesty of the game. Nothing else matters at this point.


B has elected to forfeit the game.

Whoooaaaa!!! Forfeit? You must have a death wish. There are some penalties to be assessed here but a forfeit???

I would say we have illegal participation at the 50 (15 yards), unsportsmanlike conduct on B12/B38 (15 yards), 2 Unsportsmanlike conduct penalties on coach (30 yards). Result is Bs ball 1 and 10 at their 10 yard line, Head coach and B12/B38 are ejected. I would let the new head coach for B know that if I see B12/38 anywhere near the field I will eject him (new coach) and forfeit the game.

REPLY: Are you sure this foul is USC? You might want to check that again. In my opinion, getting this foul right is the key to not screwing up the entire play.

Bob,

Why would it not be an USC on the player? I know that if any player or coach would address me in this manner (previously ejected or not), they are going to be flagged. Just because the player had been ejected earlier, does not mean you can't have an USC on him, or any other bench personnel for that matter.

BTW, the 2 USC on the coach are: 1 for the illegal tinted face shield, and 2 for allowing an ejected player back into the game.

REPLY: First off, I didn't realize that it was B12 who mouthed off to the U. I guess we're talking about two different fouls by B12/38: One, and you're absolutely correct about it, his comments deserve the USC, but my thoughts were focused on the fact that he entered the field during a down and communicated with an official. That makes him a "player" by definition and therefore he's violated the rule against a disqualified player re-entering the game. Right? That's specifically covered in another NF rule--not USC. It's the latter foul that I think is the key to not dealing with this play inequitably for A. The fact that you caught it as illegal participation is what I was looking at as a means of keeping the score from standing.

Nope. The coach allowed this behaviour to occur and made a travesty of the game by choosing to allow previously disqualified players to change their numbers and re-enter the competition. A game official was physically assaulted on the field with, essentially, the permission of the coach. This calls into question the legitimacy of the entire game.

If you tolerate this type of behaviour where do you draw the line in the future? The team clearly has no respect for the game; therefore, game over. If the game weren't over, that would be my last and it would end for me right there.

You'd better have large huevos and lots of video tape to support a forfeit. I bet you'd be a majority of one here.

Maybe that's just one more difference between Canada and the US. There'd be war...that much is guaranteed...but from the language that has been coming from the league I have my doubts that the coach would have much defence in the matter.

We're throwing flags for saying 'crap' too loud...

Facts:

a) we don't supply officials to all games that get 'scheduled'. The teams might think they've got a game but when we've only got, say, 40 officials and 12 games on the same day it simply isn't going to happen. The league simply can't afford to have officials getting assaulted.

b) we've been instructed clearly to show zero tolerance for any language on the field

c) we've been instructed to toss coaches for unsportsmanlike conduct if applicable

The league has acknowledged that they need to step up and protect their officials if they want their kids to have a game. Given the severity with which we've been instructed to penalize certain things, I can't imagine how we'd have any other choice but to end the game.

Further to that, if I were injured and forced to miss work or incur extra medical expenses because of that stupidity there would be a lawsuit to contend with as well.

ok...now I learn to read...I thought I had learned this lesson once before.

after reading and re-reading this I couldn't figure out why I seemed to be the only one advocating ending the game...

"and runs directly to the Umpire" is not the same as "and runs directly into the Umpire"...as in, 'mows over the umpire...'

I'll go back to 'not posting' for a while.

With what you have been instructed, ejection by you would be warrented, but for anyone who was not so "specifically instructed", an ejection would be too severe. I think that is what kdf5 is getting at, and I think most on this board would agree.

I agree with IAUMP, IP at the 50, USC on B12/38 (same player), and 2 USC on the coach.

I got a kick out of the fact that you said the kid with the "amber eye shield" was Gainesta38!!! Hilarious!!!

Ooohhh... nice... a Canadian ref!

Do you have a rules reference for that one?

Canadian Ruling
 

I've got illegal participation by B12. I've got a non-disqualification objectionable conduct foul by B12.

Therefore, B-1D/10 @ A-45.

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!!!!