In your example, I'm completely ok with it. To tell ya the truth, I'm really ok with all of it and I do fully understand it.

Now, imagine they make me king for a day. And I get to go through the rulebook and change anything and everything I wanted to. This is one of the things I would address. I would make it to where A didn't get the same freekick options on the replay of the down, provided they gained enough yardage for a firstdown on the original play following the F.C.

But hey! If I were King, the whole freekicking after a F.C. rule would be GONE.

REPLY: YES...they were made up by me, and NO they are not in a case book anywhere, but I stand by my original statement that <i>"...It's a standard interpretation that unless the foul explicitly excludes the right to replay the down (NF 10-1-6 and NCAA-various places), any down which follows an accepted live ball foul is considered a <u>replay</u> of the previous down."</i> I just used <b><u>my</u></b> case plays to illustrate that principle. If you choose to ignore that (or the older case play that keystoneref cited), I respectfully disagree with your decision.

NCAA does not have the free kick option, so their rules, although clearer, are irrelevant. NF 10-1-6 does not apply as it only outlines the fouls by A that include loss of down. I also don't like your wording, respectfully disagreeing I am, when you say 'standard interpretation'. Says who? Where? Not according to 5-2-5 b., imo. I conceded that the case book play puts me way behind in this argument. I will not, however, waver in the fact that this is wrong according to the spirit and intent of the rule. And, to open another can of worms lol, I'm just the kind of guy who might use some common sense and rule the way I'm arguing should it happen because I have some ground to stand on with the rule I cited.

REPLY: devdog...If the 2005 National Federation Case Book plays 4.3.7 and 6.5.4(b) aren't able to convince you that this <b><u><i>is</i></u></b> a <i>"standard interpretation"</i> then I would suggest you follow your instincts and rule it however you see fit.

And be wrong!!

Devdog’s logic and refusal to accept the proper ruling reminds me of the stile of a past poster and imposter who used to frequent this board. What you want to bet that devdog69 is actually the infamous Drock? LOL

Logic??
 

------
The NCAA rule quote was brought up as a way to clarify and help you see your misinterpretation of the rule stating that this is a "replay". You can not summarily dismiss his explanation.
Furthermore in the "Spirit of the game and Rules" a "Facemask" is an action dangerous to the welfare of the players, against fair contest, and has been deemed a penalized offense dually awarding the offended team all rights and privileges thereto. Summary: If your gonna "facemask" then you have to "face" the music.
Additionally I am surprised that since this is a time sensitive case that no mention was given to the fact that the game can not end on a defensive penalty thus allowing team A to run a play with no time on the game clock other than a free kick.

~phreaqhopp~

Advising the R??
 

How is the original plays penalty enforcement different from 4-3-7 which again says "With the score tied near the end of the 4th qtr, R1 signals for a FC and catches the kick at K's 40. After a TO, the captain of R advises the R that he wishes to put the ball in play by snap. A1 throws a pass intended for A2. B1 interferes with A2 and the pass is incomplete. Following administration of the penalty, the captain of R decides to put the ball in play by free kick from K's 25 as a field-goal attempt. RULING - This is permissible.

I do not see the difference, other than we have a DPI instead of a FM at the end of a running play. [/B][/QUOTE]

-----
Does the captain of team R really need to "advise" the Ref that he wishes to put the ball in play by "snap"? A free kick could be attempted and also be put into play by snap simultaneously. The Drop Kick.

Re: Advising the R??
 

REPLY: Not exactly sure what you're saying phreaqhopp, but a free kick and a snap are mutually exclusive. A drop kick following a snap is not a <u>free</u> kick, but rather a <u>scrimmage</u> kick.

Re: Re: Advising the R??
 

I think your question and what you are not sure of should be directed to the original poster. I used the term "free kick" in a field goal attempt as did the post I was questioning.
So then lets change the terms and on both posts, again for consistency, to "scrimmage kick". Now re read them.
Ok my question is this. The poster used the term "advise" as in to tell the ref his intentions as to weather he was going to put the ball into play "by snap" or, now since we changed the terms "scrimmage kick". ?1. Does the team need to notify the ref of such a decision (Y/N) and ?2. Then how would you notify the ref of a drop kick? A drop kick is a "scrimmage kick" which is put into play via a "snap"

phreek - the problem here is that you are using terms interchangeably that are not interchangeable. There is a difference between a free kick and a scrimmage kick - and the difference is significant in terms if this thread.

REPLY: I'm still not sure of your point. You said in your post that "A free kick could be attempted and also be put into play by snap simultaneously." That's impossible. It's either one or the other. True, a drop-kick could be used either after a snap or as a free kick. But they couldn't happen simultaneously. A scrimmage kick must by definition begin with a snap. Yes, a drop kick can be used for a free kick (if that's what you mean). But everything else would look just like a kickoff (teams 10 yards apart, onside kick possible, etc.)

its "phreaq" as in frequency not freak. I forgive you.
I know there is a difference. I did not choose to use either term I was repeating terms set forth by others. They have to be kept consistent in any event. Since you have an uncanny knack for stating the obvious care to answer the 2 questions I asked?

You need to reread my post dude. You do not understand it.
I don't know where you are getting this "simultaneous" stuff. You have an uncanny knack for stating the obvious but why don't you try answering my yes or know question. If you still don't understand it after rereading it you could always flip a coin to get your answer ;-)

Insulting me was unnecessary.

Which questions are you referring to? I see one that makes no sense - something about how a team should inform the referee that they are going to dropkick. They shouldn't - they don't need to. It's nice for them to do so, so we can be in proper position to rule on the kick... but it's not necessary.

What was the other question?