New IP Rule (3.7.1)

[ljudge]

How are we to enforce the following rule change to 3.7.1 that was previously a non-player foul? The following was taken directly from the Fed site for convenience...

In Rule 3, the substitution rule was changed to make the entry of a substitute during the down a foul for illegal participation rather than illegal substitution. Rule 3-7 was amended to require all players, replaced players and substitutes to leave the field on the side of their team box, and that replaced players or substitutes go directly to their team box. Rule 9-6 was amended to classify the entry of a player, replaced player or substitute as illegal participation if such happens during the down, and to clearly state the penalty for illegal participation.

OK, my question is as follows. HOW do we administer the penalty?

Sample case play:

A's ball 1st and 10 at the B25. A only has 10 players on the field. Immediately after the ball is snapped an A player runs on to the field at the 50 and runs toward the play but does not participate in the play. The QB throws a pass and it's caught for a touchdown.

OLD RULING: TD Counts. Administer the non-player foul on from the succeeding spot (the try) which is the 3-yard line. So the try will be administered from the 8.

NEW RULING: It's IP with the new rule. I know the TD will not stand because it's now enforced as a player foul. But where do we administer the foul from? It was A's ball on the B25. Remember A runs out of he team box at the 50. Is it 2nd down from A's own 35? Enforced from the previous spot? What?

My assumption: It's A's ball 1st and 50 from the A35. This is strictly a guess. I'm curious as to whether this was discussed on another thread, or if not what you guys think it should be.

[KWH]

Originally posted by ljudge

My assumption: It's A's ball 1st and 50 from the A35.

ALL-BUT-ONE PRINCIPLE
Since the rule change now requires the act by A is to be penalized as Illegal Partcipation, and this is a foul be the offense behind the basic spot, the foul is then enforced from the spot of the foul.
You are correct, 1st and 50 on the A35.

FYI- This change (and the other changes that it effects) were discussed at length at rules committee meeting in January. While they were certainly not unanimous, it did pass with more than a majority. Therefore, right, wrong or indifferent that is the way it is to be enforced in 2005.

Consider this play:
B1 intercepts A1's forward pass in B's endzone and returns it unmolested 104 yards up the B sideline for an apparrant TD. After B1 (still near the sidline) has ran by and passed his team box, several non-players of B step on to the field to watch the TD. The Umpire, (who by this time has recovered and has made it all the way out to the B-15) observes this illegal? activity by the B bench and throws his flag. The Umpire then reports that the B bench was on the field at the 50 prior to B1 crossing the goal line!



[Edited by KWH on Mar 10th, 2005 at 03:42 PM]

[MJT]

Originally posted by KWH

ALL-BUT-ONE PRINCIPLE
Since the rule change now requires the act by A is to be penalized as Illegal Partcipation, and this is a foul be the offense behind the basic spot, the foul is then enforced from the spot of the foul.
You are correct, 1st and 50 on the A35.

FYI- This change (and the other changes that it effects) were discussed at length at rules committee meeting in January. While they were certainly not unanimous, it did pass with more than a majority. Therefore, right, wrong or indifferent that is the way it is to be enforced in 2005.

Consider this play:
B1 intercepts A1's forward pass in A's endzone and returns it unmolested 104 yards up the B sideline for an apparrant TD. After B1 (still near the sidline) has ran by and passed his team box, several non-players of B step on to the field to watch the TD. The Umpire, (who by this time has recovered and has made it all the way out to the A-15) observes this illegal? activity by the B bench and throws his flag. The Umpire then reports that the B bench was on the field at the 50 prior to B1 crossing the goal line!

Unless you are running up the sideline, and taken out, you had better not throw that flag. I think your supervisor would shoot you if you did. That is a team member being out of the team box "at best", so the TD counts, and enforce on the try. By your writing of illegal? I am assuming you are thinking the same as I am. No foul.

Remember the intent of the rule. To take back a TD, for such a minor factor would be a horrible thing to do.

[KWH]

Oh, I'm with you MJT!
If that flag were thrown by someone on my crew, you most likely would not want to be within earshot of our locker room postgame meeting! It is possible that a person could be suject to some non-christian adjectives and nouns.

[kdf5]

Originally posted by KWH

ALL-BUT-ONE PRINCIPLE
Since the rule change now requires the act by A is to be penalized as Illegal Partcipation, and this is a foul be the offense behind the basic spot, the foul is then enforced from the spot of the foul.
You are correct, 1st and 50 on the A35.

FYI- This change (and the other changes that it effects) were discussed at length at rules committee meeting in January. While they were certainly not unanimous, it did pass with more than a majority. Therefore, right, wrong or indifferent that is the way it is to be enforced in 2005.

Consider this play:
B1 intercepts A1's forward pass in A's endzone and returns it unmolested 104 yards up the B sideline for an apparrant TD. After B1 (still near the sidline) has ran by and passed his team box, several non-players of B step on to the field to watch the TD. The Umpire, (who by this time has recovered and has made it all the way out to the A-15) observes this illegal? activity by the B bench and throws his flag. The Umpire then reports that the B bench was on the field at the 50 prior to B1 crossing the goal line!

I agree with not throwing this flag and I agree that the play in the original post is ABO principle. Just a technical note, that in the above play, B would intercept the pass in B's EZ, not A's.

[KWH]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by kdf5

Just a technical note, that in the above play, B would intercept the pass in B's EZ, not A's.

Good catch kdf5-
I corrected BOTH my errors in my original post!
Buy em books and send em to school...

[ljudge]

I agree this would be a horrible flag. I was more curious as to the enforcement vs. the philosophy of whether to throw or not. I was certain I knew the (costly) enforcement which made me scratch my head. This is one heck of an expensive penalty for something so benign. It would be 100 times worse than calling holding away from a play.

[Edited by ljudge on Mar 10th, 2005 at 04:18 PM]

[kdf5]

Originally posted by ljudge
I agree this would be a horrible flag. I was more curious as to the enforcement vs. the philosophy of whether to throw or not. I was certain I knew the (costly) enforcement which made me scratch my head. This is one heck of an expensive penalty for something so benign. It would be 100 times worse than calling holding away from a play.

[Edited by ljudge on Mar 10th, 2005 at 04:18 PM]

I agree if you are taken out by B players on the field or they are out far enough that I have to dodge and weave my way through them or if they are out far enough or numerous enough that I lose sight of the play or lose sight of the rest of the field I would throw that flag. But to have to run a little wide of a couple of legs and feet over the sideline peering around their teammates wouldn't.

[TC]

How about calling it an unsportsmanship penalty and penalizing from succeding spot? Maybe they'll give us an exception.

[ljudge]

TC - that's what it just changed FROM (OK, not quite). Before it was a non-player foul administered from the succeding spot. The only difference is 5 vs. 15 yards in the rule scenario you mentioned (non-player vs. USC). But again, they changed it from a succeeding spot foul to a player foul so I highly doubt there would be any kind of exception. From the scenarios everyone painted here it's something you should be careful to flag and make sure it's really warranted (as in MJT's scenario) if you do drop the hankie.

[MJT]

by KWH Consider this play:
B1 intercepts A1's forward pass in B's endzone and returns it unmolested 104 yards up the B sideline for an apparrant TD. After B1 (still near the sidline) has ran by and passed his team box, several non-players of B step on to the field to watch the TD. The Umpire, (who by this time has recovered and has made it all the way out to the B-15) observes this illegal? activity by the B bench and throws his flag. The Umpire then reports that the B bench was on the field at the 50 prior to B1 crossing the goal line!

What I am getting at is the play described does not meet the new rule at all. The new rules says in part the entry of a substitute during the down is a foul for illegal participation rather than illegal substitution. This is not what happened. You have nonplayers on the field, but not as a player or substitute. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING it fits under rule 9-8-1i, which says it is a nonplayer USC foul for "a nonplayer being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player." IF you throw a flag, it is this, which is administered from the succeeding spot.

[Edited by MJT on Mar 10th, 2005 at 10:06 PM]

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by ljudge
How are we to enforce the following rule change to 3.7.1 that was previously a non-player foul? The following was taken directly from the Fed site for convenience...

In Rule 3, the substitution rule was changed to make the entry of a substitute during the down a foul for illegal participation rather than illegal substitution. Rule 3-7 was amended to require all players, replaced players and substitutes to leave the field on the side of their team box, and that replaced players or substitutes go directly to their team box. Rule 9-6 was amended to classify the entry of a player, replaced player or substitute as illegal participation if such happens during the down, and to clearly state the penalty for illegal participation.

OK, my question is as follows. HOW do we administer the penalty?

Sample case play:

A's ball 1st and 10 at the B25. A only has 10 players on the field. Immediately after the ball is snapped an A player runs on to the field at the 50 and runs toward the play but does not participate in the play. The QB throws a pass and it's caught for a touchdown.

OLD RULING: TD Counts. Administer the non-player foul on from the succeeding spot (the try) which is the 3-yard line. So the try will be administered from the 8.

NEW RULING: It's IP with the new rule. I know the TD will not stand because it's now enforced as a player foul. But where do we administer the foul from? It was A's ball on the B25. Remember A runs out of he team box at the 50. Is it 2nd down from A's own 35? Enforced from the previous spot? What?

My assumption: It's A's ball 1st and 50 from the A35. This is strictly a guess. I'm curious as to whether this was discussed on another thread, or if not what you guys think it should be.

By rule I agree that would be enforced from the spot of the foul. However, how are you going to call that? I would be a little to busy 40 yards downfield to know that player came onto the field durning the play, much less know exactly where he entered the field. I count the players before the play if I am U or R, not after it has happened.

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by MJT
by KWH Consider this play:
B1 intercepts A1's forward pass in B's endzone and returns it unmolested 104 yards up the B sideline for an apparrant TD. After B1 (still near the sidline) has ran by and passed his team box, several non-players of B step on to the field to watch the TD. The Umpire, (who by this time has recovered and has made it all the way out to the B-15) observes this illegal? activity by the B bench and throws his flag. The Umpire then reports that the B bench was on the field at the 50 prior to B1 crossing the goal line!

What I am getting at is the play described does not meet the new rule at all. The new rules says in part the entry of a substitute during the down is a foul for illegal participation rather than illegal substitution. This is not what happened. You have nonplayers on the field, but not as a player or substitute. IF YOU HAVE ANYTHING it fits under rule 9-8-1i, which says it is a nonplayer USC foul for "a nonplayer being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player." IF you throw a flag, it is this, which is administered from the succeeding spot.

[Edited by MJT on Mar 10th, 2005 at 10:06 PM]

I agree, this would at best be a suceeding spot USC for a non player being on the field.

[KWH]

Originally posted by MJT
...What I am getting at is the play described does not meet the new rule at all...

MJT-
I agree with you in 2004!
However this particular play was discussed at the January Rules Committee Meeting and the answer was "this is I.P., if he comes on to the field, he participated, period!"
Furthermore, the conflicting rules (such as 9-8-1i) will be ammended to reflect the change! The goal was to remove any and all judgement (such as; Did the action have any affect on the play?) from the officials with the idea of simplification, consistant officiating and rules enforcement.

Sideline control has been a point of emphasis for several years now and the NFHS is continuing down that same road with this move. The NFHS wants the sidelines cleaned up! Think about it for a minute, if this play happened and the flag was thrown, and the touchdown taken away, do you think there is any chance that another B player would encroach on the sideline again??? Maybe the "get back coaches" would be forced to actually do their jobs! I suggest this information gets to the coaches in their preseason league meetings and in your 2005 pregame coaches meeting.

It was also made abundantly clear at the rules committee meeting that they need CASE PLAYS in the case book that properly reflect these new changes.
I personally am going to submit this particular play to the "July NFHS Football Rules Interpreters" meeting (I will also be in attendance) for consideration of one of the case plays to be placed on the NFHS website for 2005. We'll see how far I can get!

Now that I have stood on my NFHS soap box (for too long) let me take off my NFHS hat, place my white hat on my head and say this: If you are ever in that situation, Don't throw that dad gummed flag! However, do have that little short reminder chat with the coach at the next opportunity...

[MJT]

Originally posted by KWH

MJT-
I agree with you in 2004!
However this particular play was discussed at the January Rules Committee Meeting and the answer was "this is I.P., if he comes on to the field, he participated, period!"
Furthermore, the conflicting rules (such as 9-8-1i) will be ammended to reflect the change! The goal was to remove any and all judgement (such as; Did the action have any affect on the play?) from the officials with the idea of simplification, consistant officiating and rules enforcement.

Sideline control has been a point of emphasis for several years now and the NFHS is continuing down that same road with this move. The NFHS wants the sidelines cleaned up! Think about it for a minute, if this play happened and the flag was thrown, and the touchdown taken away, do you think there is any chance that another B player would encroach on the sideline again??? Maybe the "get back coaches" would be forced to actually do their jobs! I suggest this information gets to the coaches in their preseason league meetings and in your 2005 pregame coaches meeting.

It was also made abundantly clear at the rules committee meeting that they need CASE PLAYS in the case book that properly reflect these new changes.
I personally am going to submit this particular play to the "July NFHS Football Rules Interpreters" meeting (I will also be in attendance) for consideration of one of the case plays to be placed on the NFHS website for 2005. We'll see how far I can get!

Now that I have stood on my NFHS soap box (for too long) let me take off my NFHS hat, place my white hat on my head and say this: If you are ever in that situation, Don't throw that dad gummed flag! However, do have that little short reminder chat with the coach at the next opportunity...

So you are saying the NF wants us to call a live ball IP foul anytime we throw a flag for a nonplayer stepping on the field. I can see a nonplayer coming onto the field to be involved in the play, even if he does not influence it, cuz it takes the judgement off of us, but if they step off the sideline as well??? I will have to see a case play similar to what you asked to make that call. Like I said, probably a "no call" anyway, but if we do call it, we need to know what the proper call is. I hope they answer this specific play for us to look at. Where and when is the July NFHS Football Rules Interpreters meeting anyway? Who goes, and is it open to the general public, us normal officials, or by invitation only.?