Here's the play.

R makes a fair catch at his own 35. After that, A then throws a screenpass that gains all the way down to the 20 of B. On the tackle, B25 tackles A33 by the facemask. B is penalized half the distance to the 10 of B. A33 never leaves the field. However, he hangs out between the sideline and the 9 yard mark. After enforcement of the penalty, A then decides to free kick from B's 10 yardline. A33 still hasn't come back within the 9 yard marks and A/K kicks a successful FG through the uprights.

Is A/K penalized?

If so, what do you call it?

Interested to see what you guys think.

Off the top of my head, we have an illegal formation foul for A33 not being inside the numbers after the RFP. They still will have the option to free kick.

No Foul. The requirement for players to be between the 9-yard marks applies only to scrimmage downs. Rule references:

"7-2-1 After the ball is ready for play, each player of A who participated in the previous down and each substitute for A must have been, momentarily, between the 9-yard marks, before the SNAP." and...
"8-4-1a The field-goal attempt shall be a place kick or a drop kick from scrimmage, or from a FREE KICK following a fair catch, or an awarded fair catch."

Your play describes a free kick that scores a field goal which does not include a SNAP.

Would you penalize K if they came straight from their sideline before a free kick and went directly to their kickoff positions? No, because there is no requirement for player positioning during free kicks. The same would apply in this situation.

I agree 100%

Just wanted to see what you guys thought.

It could sneak up on you in an exam where the writer of the exam is particularly sneaky.

LOL...

Anyway, thats exactly right.

I wouldn't have agreed with you until I read the rules again. When the NCAA put in their distance-from-the-sideline rule they included free kicks as well. But I guess that means that NF never had any proximity rule for participation on a kickoff. Sure does leave a great opportunity for a hide-out play on an onside kick.

What ?
 

How in the world are they deciding to free kick? This field goal attempt would have to be a scrimmage kick and yes, I think you would penalize A33.

DevDog, this is a free kick following a fair catch.
See rule 4-1-2-c. Also see 8-4-1-a.

You're gonna have to help me, because I'm missing this one big time.
Last time I checked a fair catch meant a dead ball and the series began from that point, aka the 35 yd line. Therefore, the screen pass occurred on 1st down as did the run, as did the penalties which resulted from another first down after enforcement of the facemask penalty. Therefore, it WAS NOT after an awarded fair catch but after a scrimmage play.

DevDog, because the down is replayed following the penalty, team A still has the option after the fair catch of putting the ball in play with either a snap or a free kick. In this case, they chose the free kick this time instead of a snap. Hope that clears it up. Maybe someone can word it better than this.

Always happy to help a fellow member (based on your basketball signature).

They can still choose to free kick following a penalty, if it is the play after the fair catch, or awarded fair catch, even if originally they choose to put the ball into play via a snap. Casebook 4-3-7 has the same scenario.

I still don't follow, sorry. Here's what I see happenening:

1) A makes a fair catch at his own 35. Boom, that play is over. 1st and 10 at the 35 for A.
2) On 1st down they throw a screen pass that goes to the B20 and there is a facemask which is a tack-on and takes it to the 10 yd line. It is now 1st and 10 for A there.
3) Now we have an illegal formation foul by A, penalized by a five yard penalty if accepted.
4) We cannot have a free kick after an awarded fair catch at this point because we had a play in between (screen pass play from scrimmage).

Your doing great up until #4. On that one I will agree with you that a play has been run, the screen pass. However the down was not changed. It was replayed. Then even after the illegal formation it is still the first first-down following a fair-catch or awarded fair-catch. Thus A has the option still, even after possibly moving the ball 90 yards, of kicking a free-kick for a field-goal. All of the rules references are listed above.

REPLY: devdog...the key to understanding this is in NF 6-5-4:

<b>"ART. 4…</b> <i>The captain may choose to free kick or snap anywhere between the inbounds lines on the yard line through the spot of the catch when a fair catch is made or through the spot of interference, when a fair catch is awarded. <b>These choices remain if a dead ball foul occurs prior to the down, or a foul or an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed.</b></i>

Even though the down number may not be the same (because B's penalty took A past the line the gain), the down is still considered "replayed."

It is all beginning to hinge on whether this down is considered being replayed. I've read 6-5-4 and the case play 4.3.7, neither really help with that aspect, i.e., whether a tack-on penalty gives the offense a replay or just 15 more yards. 5-2-2 says 'the number of the next down is the same as that of the down during which the foul occurred unless penalty acceptance includes a first down or loss of down, or the enforcement or the advance results in a first down.'
Furthermore, 5-2-5 says 'Following a foul, a series of downs ends when: b. Acceptance or declination of any penalty leaves A in possession beyond the line to gain.

That is where I am basing my feeling that the series has ended and a new one has begun after enforcement of the long run and penalty.

And DevDog on your item #3, there is no illegal formation because they are going to free kick. He doesn't have to come inside the 9 yard marks.

He's not going to free kick on my football field until you guys convince me that my argument above is faulty ;)

Bob has it correct. The down following the fair catch is being replayed due to a foul, therefore, team A still has the option to free kick or snap. It's in the rules.

Sorry, that's not good enough. I've been in the rulebook and have quoted the rule as to why I think the series ended. Tell me where it is 'in the rules', and I will look it up immediately.

DevDog, we'll probably have to agree to disagree here, but 6-5-4 supports the choice to free kick or snap. The case play 4.3.7 is very clear. In this instance, the foul is DPI, which includes an automatic first down as part of the penalty administration. This is still considered a replay of the previous down and A is given the choice to free kick or snap. This could only happen on first down following a fair catch.

And, a tack on penalty does give a replay of the down. Consider, 2nd and 25. A1 runs for 5 yards but is tackled by his facemask, 15 yarder. What is the next down and distance if A accepts penalty? It is 2nd and 5. The down is replayed even with the tack on. Same play, but A1 runs for 10 yards. It will then be 1st down after penalty enforcement, but the down is still considered replayed.

Good points made and good discussion. Hope I never see this. :)

As I stated on page #1, 4-3-7 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 and the clock will not start until the kick is touched, other than 1st touching by K. R is also priviledged to disignate the point on K's 25, anywhere between the IB's lines he wishes the ball to be placed.

I do not see what you are saying "that the series has ended after enforcement of the long run and penalty???

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.

I do not see what you are saying "that the series has ended after enforcement of the long run and penalty???

Yes, that's exactly what I'm saying. Because, that's what the rule below says.

5-2-5 says 'Following a foul, a series of downs ends when: b. Acceptance or declination of any penalty leaves A in possession beyond the line to gain.

According to 5-2-5, this series of downs has ended. Thus, we are NOT replaying anything and thus, no option to free kick.
Basically, I believe there are conflicts between 4.3.7 and 5-2-5, how can you take one over the other is my problem.

[Edited by devdog69 on Jul 18th, 2005 at 06:35 PM]

It would still be 1st down. Facemasking is not a loss of down foul.

5-2-5-a says "following a foul, a series of down ends when the acceptance of the penalty includes the award of a 1st down." This is the case in the DPI of 4-3-7, so the right to still free kick is allowed after a series of downs is ended.

5-2-5-a is what 4-3-7 is referring to, and 5-2-5-b is what you are using as your argument and they are in the same article, so they are one and the same regarding the right to rekick.

Sorry Fellas.

I must admit, I posted this because I too have some convictions about this scenario. However, I do believe the rules support the right for A to free kick. Even though they just gained a ton of yards and for all intensive purposes they had their first down on their own merit. But that facemask penalty allows them to REPLAY the down that they just gained a mile on. And they now have an opportunity to free kick a FG to win the game. Just doesn't seem right, but alot of things in life are that way.

BTW, I just threw the illegal formation thing in there to make sure I understood that on free kicks the 9 yard marks don't matter.

Great discussion though. Good stuff!!!

REPLY: devdog...NF 5-2-2 (and NCAA 5-2-3) both relate to what the down <u>number</u> will be after an accepted penalty. The NCAA rule is a little cleaner since it specifically says <i>"...the down will be repeated..."</i> whereas its Federation counterpart simply says that <i>"The number of the next down is the same..."</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 replay of the previous down. This is true even if the prior series might have ended because of acceptance of the penalty. So consider these three situations:

After making a fair catch at K's 30, A runs a play from scrimmage.

(a) He's stopped for a loss at B's 34. However B is guilty of an incidental face mask. After enforcement, it's A's ball, first and 9 at B's 29. Team A indicates that they'd like to attempt a free kick. Ruling: Since the prior down is being replayed due to acceptance of the penalty, their request is valid.

(b) He runs to B's 16 where he is dragged down by the face mask. Acceptance of penalty gives A a new series at B's 8 yardline. Captain indicates that they wish to attempt a free kick. Ruling: Even though the prior series has ended, the prior down is still considered "replayed" making this also a valid request.

(c) He runs to B's 5 where he throws an illegal forward pass that falls incomplete. After enforcement, the resulting situation is A's ball, first and goal from B's 10. Team A captain indicates that they wish to attempt a free kick. Ruling: Prior series has ended, but the illegal forward pass penalty includes loss of the right to repeat the down. Their request to free kick is denied.

[Note: These scenarios are moot for NCAA since there is no option to free kick after a fair catch is made.]

...and they are made up by you and are in no case book or rule book anywhere, so...I fully see your point, I just don't agree with the logic and don't think that within the 'spirit of the rules' this should be allowed. I am going to bring it up with our state director and get his view on this. Not that it will ever happn, anyway, lol.

After reading this thread I thought I would pull out my old casebooks and see if a play was directly on point. The play that I am about to list was in the casebook from 1987 to 1994. This remained the casebook play until 1995 when they changed to the play that they are currently using. The rule has not changed in that time and I am not aware of any new interpretations, that being said this illistrates team A has the right to free kick if they choose to.

6.5.3B Play: Team A is behind 7-6 with 20 seconds remaining in the 4th period. Team A has made a fair catch on the 50, and chooses to snap. A1 runs to the 20 where B1 tackles him, but grabs A1's face mask. If the penalty is accepted may Team A now request to free kick? Ruling: The request would be granted since the penalty was accepted for a foul which occured during the down following a fair catch or awarded fair catch.

This play is exactly like the play that was described except the yard lines have been changed. I hope this helps.

Oh, it helps a bunch!!!

I think I hear crickets chirping.. LOL

Just kidding, I still feel like this is just kinda weird. But rules are rules.

Another way to look at it:

Let's say R fair catches at the K35. They choose to snap and run for three yards on the following scrimmage down, but B commits a 5-yard face mask foul, which is accepted. Since it is now 1st and 2, I think we can agree that this down is being replayed, A does not get a new series, and they still have the option to free-kick.

Now... would it be in the spirit of the rules to allow A the option to free-kick after this 5-yard penalty, but not if the face mask happens to be a 15-yarder? In the latter situation, B has committed a more serious foul, but you want to take away A's option to free kick simply because the succeeding spot forces us to move the chains.

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?

I don't recall insulting you... as a matter of fact you called me freak. Is that supposed to be a copliment?
for get it. Like I said I forgive you ;-)
In any event, then you have answered the question, a simple "no" would have sufficed.
Thanks.

Wow - you're on fire. Insulting Bob was also not necessary. Where do you get off "Dude"ing us?

Of course he doesn't understand your post. Neither does anyone else. Did it occur to you that since two relatively common posters here failed to understand your point, that possibly it wasn't due to our collective dimness - possibly it was due to the incoherence of your post? Reread it? I reread it several times. I suspect Bob did as well. Still have no idea what point you were trying to make. (Heck... I don't even know which side of the argument you're on... the free kick is allowable in this situation (i.e. the correct side) or is not allowable (the wrong side).

Why don't you step back two steps, and rephrase what you were trying to say, so we can attempt to comment intelligently. You'll find that most of the posters here will attempt to discuss topics with you when you are polite.

I don't believe I called you a freak. I believe I shortened your handle because I couldn't remember how you had spelled it, and managed to misspell the last letter or two of that. I didn't choose your name - you did. My shortening of it was not intended as offense.

You say I answered your question. I answered 1 - you inferred there was another, but I've lost it.

I'm not going to get into a war of words with you. If you want to get back on topic, I'll respond. If not...

You have answered the question.
Since when is Dude an insult??
I think your... wel nevermind.
Dude was never meant to be an insult...
Perhapse I should change my handle to "Dude" :-)

P.S. Winks ";-)" and smiles ":-)" are not insulting either. In fact they are used to bring levity and candidness to an e-mail conversation. Would emoticons help?

Well its write in front of you all you had to do was look if you didn't remember. There is no second part to the question if the answer is no.

Dude this topis is over. I have better things to do...
L8R

Re: Advising the R??
 

REPLY: phreaqhopp...first of all, I've been called many things in my years on the field. "Dude" isn't one of them. But no offense taken. Here's what's got me (and apparently others) confused: You asked your question a while back but included with it a statement that is patently untrue:

The answer to your question is "no." Putting the ball in play by 'snap' is pretty much the default. If the coach/captain knew the rule that allowed him to free kick and asked for that option, by all means we would set up for the free kick and instruct both teams about what's going to happen since probably neither of them would have ever seen it. After 27 years of doing this, <b><u><i>I've</i></u></b> never seen it! Likewise, I would not ask the captain explicitly if he wanted to free kick. I would inform him that if the penalty was accepted, he would still retain the options he had on the prior down following his fair catch.

BUT...since your question was then followed by a statement that said that they could put the ball in play by a free kick and snap <u>simultaneously</u> by attempting a drop kick, we were justifiably confused. Since snap and free kick are mutually exclusive, we no longer understood the context in which you asked the question.