Foul on scoring play

[ljudge]

Last year a new rule was put in that would allow a 1/2 the distance penalty on a try if there was a foul by the opponent of the scoring team on a play.

eg: A's ball 1st and 10 at B's 5. If team B commits a live-ball personal foul on the play it will be enforced on the try instead of automatically declining. That I know for sure and was new in 2004.

If A illegally shifts and B returns an interception for a TD I thought that foul was still declined even under the new rule. I thought someone told me the only way we would enforce a foul against team A when B intercepts and scores is if team A fouls AFTER team B gains possession. I'm having a brain lapse on this one. I looked it up in the rule book and I can't seem to find it so I'm guessing I was incorrect. Anyone know?

[Warrenkicker]

You are right. See 8-2-2, 8-3-5, and 8-4-3. The case book has your play under 8.2.2 Situation B.

[ljudge]

Actually it doesn't address the situation because the acceptance of the foul would have given a safety so you would need to pick somehow between 1/2 the distance penalty on a try vs. a safey...you can't have both. So in this specific situation you have had to decline the penalty to keep the TD (to avoid the safety). If the hold had occurred at the 1 yard line is where my question really is. Would B need to decline to keep the TD? In the prior rule the answer was yes and it was automatic. In the current rule it appears as though it would be a 1/2 the distance penalty. According to the rules the foul against A (again, holding at the 1) is permitted to be enforced on B's try and the rules support that.

So with that added variable am I correct in that it's still a 1/2 distance penalty for B on the try?

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by ljudge
Last year a new rule was put in that would allow a 1/2 the distance penalty on a try if there was a foul by the opponent of the scoring team on a play.

eg: A's ball 1st and 10 at B's 5. If team B commits a live-ball personal foul on the play it will be enforced on the try instead of automatically declining. That I know for sure and was new in 2004.

REPLY: Correct...

Originally posted by ljudge
If A illegally shifts and B returns an interception for a TD I thought that foul was still declined even under the new rule. I thought someone told me the only way we would enforce a foul against team A when B intercepts and scores is if team A fouls AFTER team B gains possession. I'm having a brain lapse on this one. I looked it up in the rule book and I can't seem to find it so I'm guessing I was incorrect. Anyone know?

REPLY: You're correct here also. The problem that is causing confusion is that even though the Fed changed the rule, they forgot to update the rule book! Here's the way NF 8-2-2 is supposed to read:

Art. 2...If during a touchdown-scoring play, a foul by the opponents of the scoring team occurs on a play where there is no change of possession; or a foul by the opponents of the scoring team occurs after the change of possession, if there is a change of possession, the scoring team may accept the results of the play and have the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot.

[Note: This omission was acknowledged in 2004 NFHS Football Rule Interpretations on the National Federation website.]

[Warrenkicker]

Originally posted by ljudge
Actually it doesn't address the situation because the acceptance of the foul would have given a safety so you would need to pick somehow between 1/2 the distance penalty on a try vs. a safey...you can't have both. So in this specific situation you have had to decline the penalty to keep the TD (to avoid the safety). If the hold had occurred at the 1 yard line is where my question really is. Would B need to decline to keep the TD? In the prior rule the answer was yes and it was automatic. In the current rule it appears as though it would be a 1/2 the distance penalty. According to the rules the foul against A (again, holding at the 1) is permitted to be enforced on B's try and the rules support that.

So with that added variable am I correct in that it's still a 1/2 distance penalty for B on the try?

I think you need to describe your entire play again. It seems to me that you have two different plays going on here. My explaination above fit your play but now you have things happening in the end zone and apparently multiple fouls.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Joe...I think I understand your point. But Warrenkicker's reply makes me wonder if I really do. I still think you're correct on both points made in your original post. Warrenkicker's mention of case play 8.2.2 Sit B is not related to your original play--at least I don't think it is. In 8.2.2-B, the premise is that the hold by A10 is prior to the change of possession, so it's excluded from any consideration of carry-over to the try anyway. B could always accept the penalty for the hold and take the 2 points, but they'd need to give up the TD. Now in some cases, they might want to do that, but rarely. But the point of the case play is that they can't have both the TD and the holding penalty enforced on the subsequent try.

[ljudge]

Neither of you are missing the point here (WK and Bob). The only confusion is the case play WK mentioned isn't quite the same as I described it in my original post. The case play was interesting though becuase if you did enforce the hold in the EZ you have to have a safety and there's no way in heck you can have a 1/2 distance penalty.

The rule re-phrasing you cited Bob is exactly what I was looking for.

[Warrenkicker]

Well if your happy with the answers then we're happy. I still don't see where you cited a play where A fouled in the endzone and then B got the ball and returned it for a touchdown. In that play B has the choice of accepting the penalty and taking the safety or declining the penalty and taking the touchdown.

However my original citing of the case book play exactly covers your first play (the illegal shift) in that the foul occured before the change of possession thus the penalty must be declined to even keep the ball much less the touchdown.

[PSU213]

The safety came in with 8.2.2B (although no one specifically mentioned the safety element from the Case Book play). I think the confusion is: does the safety "element" somehow change the choices for the scoring team? In other words, must B decline A's foul in every case or just when A's foul would also result in a safety?

But you are correct, on and Int/fumble return for a TD, the scoring team would have to decline a foul by their opponents that occured prior to a change of possession in order to keep the TD.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by PSU213
The safety came in with 8.2.2B (although no one specifically mentioned the safety element from the Case Book play). I think the confusion is: does the safety "element" somehow change the choices for the scoring team? In other words, must B decline A's foul in every case or just when A's foul would also result in a safety?

But you are correct, on and Int/fumble return for a TD, the scoring team would have to decline a foul by their opponents that occured prior to a change of possession in order to keep the TD.

REPLY: PSU213...I don't see that the safety element in the case play in any way affects how rule 8-2-2 is interpreted or enforced. It's just another consequence of A's holding foul. B can always accept the penalty and the two points it gives them. But then they 'lose' the TD. As I mentioned earlier, that might be a reasonable choice in rare situations, but it is a choice. But, as others have said, since the hold occurred before the COP, it's excluded from any consideration for caryy-over into the PAT. The rule really doesn't care where it occurred, but does care when it occurred relative to the COP. The fact that the stated case play had the hold occurring in A's endzone adds a new dimension to B's decision, but doesn't change how the carry-over rule is interpreted or enforced. I think we're all in violent agreement on this one.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: One other thing to note...the provision for carry-over of a penalty is not specified in Rule 10 (Enforcement) but rather in Rule 8 (Scoring). That's probably because it does not apply to all scoring plays. It applies specifically only to TDs, successful FGs, and successful tries. Don't even think about trying to apply it to a play involving a safety as the scoring play.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: PSU213...I don't see that the safety element in the case play in any way affects how rule 8-2-2 is interpreted or enforced. It's just another consequence of A's holding foul. B can always accept the penalty and the two points it gives them. But then they 'lose' the TD. As I mentioned earlier, that might be a reasonable choice in rare situations, but it is a choice. But, as others have said, since the hold occurred before the COP, it's excluded from any consideration for caryy-over into the PAT. The rule really doesn't care where it occurred, but does care when it occurred relative to the COP. The fact that the stated case play had the hold occurring in A's endzone adds a new dimension to B's decision, but doesn't change how the carry-over rule is interpreted or enforced. I think we're all in violent agreement on this one.

Oh, exactly. I was just pointing out that 8.2.2B also involved a safety, which was't really asked about in the OP. And, yes, we are all in agreement that B must decline A's foul before the COP to keep the TD.