Clarification of new IP enforcement

[Warrenkicker]

The enforcement spot has always been the point of this discussion. But if, for the moment, we all agree that on a play where A enters the field after the snap and we don't use all-but-one enforcement then read this situation and see what we would have to do.

A is behind 16-14 with 3 seconds left in the game. They have the ball on A-5. The run a play, run or pass, up their sideline. During that play one or more A nonplayers leave the sideline and block B players allowing A to score a touchdown. Based on the assumptions above what is the result of this play?

[kentref]

ljudge, great question - I see why you're wondering if the Fed wants this type of situation to be an exception to the all but one. Let me add this:

When the Fed deleted the text ("... but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play,...") in 9.6 comment (part b), what they essentially did was eliminate a lot of the difference between part b and part c of the 9.6 comment. Given their original language they may have wanted to make an exception to the all but one principle in part b, but when they deleted that text, I'm not seeing where part b is now not that much different than part c.

Part b indicates that enforcement is from the basic spot. Even though this is how the Fed phrased it, I'm of the opinion that unless they specifically state that (part b) is to be an "exception" to the all but one principle, then I'm going to enforce it using the all but one. In your caseplay example, A would then be penalized from the spot of the foul, a foul by A behind the basic spot. And yes, it would potentially be a huge penalty. If this is truly how the Fed wants it enforced, then they are putting IP (even if the entering substitute doesn't materially affect the play) in the same boat with safety-related fouls like clipping or blocking below the waist that are clearly enforced using the all but one.

I plan to ask the Nebraska association about their take on this. I'm doing some games in Iowa this year and will be interested to see what MJT finds out from them.

[MJT]

Originally posted by kentref
ljudge, great question - I see why you're wondering if the Fed wants this type of situation to be an exception to the all but one. Let me add this:

When the Fed deleted the text ("... but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play,...") in 9.6 comment (part b), what they essentially did was eliminate a lot of the difference between part b and part c of the 9.6 comment. Given their original language they may have wanted to make an exception to the all but one principle in part b, but when they deleted that text, I'm not seeing where part b is now not that much different than part c.

Part b indicates that enforcement is from the basic spot. Even though this is how the Fed phrased it, I'm of the opinion that unless they specifically state that (part b) is to be an "exception" to the all but one principle, then I'm going to enforce it using the all but one. In your caseplay example, A would then be penalized from the spot of the foul, a foul by A behind the basic spot. And yes, it would potentially be a huge penalty. If this is truly how the Fed wants it enforced, then they are putting IP (even if the entering substitute doesn't materially affect the play) in the same boat with safety-related fouls like clipping or blocking below the waist that are clearly enforced using the all but one.

I plan to ask the Nebraska association about their take on this. I'm doing some games in Iowa this year and will be interested to see what MJT finds out from them.

Ok, here is what I found out. This is definitely a change from last year.
I mentioned to our state FB rule supervisor what we all have been discussing. He said when they say basic spot enforcement, they mean normal all-but-one. As I stated earlier, I cannot think of anytime that if the offense fouls behind the basic spot, we do not use the all-but-one. According to him this is NOT an exception to that.

The rule was put in to take the judgment out of the officials hands as to whether it is IS or IP. Thus, as 9-6-4-a states it is IP “when a player, replaced player, or substitute comes enters during a down.” Thus the case book 9-6-b and 9-6-c saying “basic spot” and “all-but-one” are not different. This was a great catch by ljudge, but apparently it is not specifying that in (b) we are to enforce from the BS, but not take the all-but-one into account when A fouls behind the BS.

Two areas that this will come into play as we have discussed are:
1. “if a player thinking he is the 11th player runs off the field, and then the coach tells him to get back on the field so he runs back on after the ball is snapped” – IP from BS, so if by the offense we must toss the flag to the SPOT HE RETURNED cuz if by the offense that would be the spot of penalty enforcement if it was by A and behind the BS.
2. As we have stated, “the ball is snapped at the 5 and A35 is running a sweep to the right and from the sideline at the 50 an A player sprint onto the field cuz they were short one player.” Now we TECHNICALLY have an IP foul, from the 50, and when enforced by the all-but-one, we would enforce 15 yards from the 50 and A would be backed up to their own 35 yard line, so a 60 yard penalty.

We all know, and he even said that is not the intent of the rule, but it one thing we are stuck with for a year as kind of a catch 22 with the new wording of the rule. Now I stated earlier, I will be instructing the guys on my crew to handle #1 properly, as this would not be a massive penalty, but in #2 we did not see him on the field until the ball was dead, unless he got “pretty close” or got involved in the play, and then at worst we would enforce from the 25 (end of team box) if down by the goal and if it is not down by the goal, then we will get the flag on the spot.

So the SD and IA supervisors stated, we COULD have the huge penalty, but use some common sense on when and where you see them.

I am pretty sure we will have a change to handle this scenario next year. My bet is an IP foul in which no contact with the ball, an opponent, or direct influence in the play will be enforced from the PS, and if contact, then all-but-one. I guess we’ll see.

[KWH]

You guys are reading way to much into this foul!!!

As per 9-6-4a...
If he comes on the field during the down it is IP

As per 9-6-4a penalty...
Live Ball, Basic spot

As per 10-6...
If the offense fouls behind the basic spot it is a spot foul

Summary...
If a crew mate throws the flag for IP you don't have the power to decide where to enforce the penalty from rather the all-but-one is very specific as to where the foul is to be enforced from.

Restated...
Whether you like or dislike the rule change does not give you justification to change the penalty enforcment.

Hint...
I suggest you spend a little time discussing this situation in your pre-game meeting.

Epiloge...
Good officials know when to and when not to throw a flag.

Nuff said

[MJT]

Agreed KWH.

[ljudge]

KWH, we know basic penalty enforcement and it's not the issue. We have already decided that and we're all well aware of 10.6 having learned that as cadets. I'm not "reading into" anything, but simply simply referencing the words they printed in the case book on page 71. I was curious as to whether there was an exception in this case where they specifically didn't want all-but-one applied thinking they didn't want the huge penalty enforced for some stupid infraction so benign. Look at the words on page 71 and you'll see what I mean.

I'm in total agreement on keeping the hankie in the pocket and not giving some ridiculous 40-yard penalty.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by KWH
You guys are reading way to much into this foul!!!

As per 9-6-4a...
If he comes on the field during the down it is IP

According to question #5 on the Part 1 exam, if B12 enters the field during the down, does not affect, influence or participate in the play and returns to the sideline, it is IS not IP, based on 3-7-4.

That's why "but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play" was removed from 9.6 Comment.

[MJT]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

According to question #5 on the Part 1 exam, if B12 enters the field during the down, does not affect, influence or participate in the play and returns to the sideline, it is IS not IP, based on 3-7-4.

That's why "but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play" was removed from 9.6 Comment.

That is NOT what #5 says, and is not the rule.

The NEW rule 9-6-4-a says "it is IP when any player, replaced player, or substitute enters during a down."

Question #5 says "If sub B12 enters the field during a down but does not participate or influence the play, it is a nonplayer foul." This is a FALSE statement, cuz it is NOT a nonplayer foul, but an IP foul.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by MJT

That is NOT what #5 says, and is not the rule.

The NEW rule 9-6-4-a says "it is IP when any player, replaced player, or substitute enters during a down."

Question #5 says "If sub B12 enters the field during a down but does not participate or influence the play, it is a nonplayer foul." This is a FALSE statement, cuz it is NOT a nonplayer foul, but an IP foul.

Not true according to the NFHS, MJT. The NFHS Answer Key says the answer is true and they cite 3-7-4 as the rule reference. Therefore, the NFHS is saying that if the player enters during the down and does not particiapte or influence the play, it is IS, not IP. They are saying that since he is a sub and never becomes a player, it is a non-player foul.

It makes no difference to me. But there are conflicting interpretations here. Which in interp/situation is correct?

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 4th, 2005 at 03:30 PM]

[Patton]

Originally posted by BktBallRef


Not true according to the NFHS, MJT. The NFHS Answer Key says the answer is true and they cite 3-7-4 as the rule reference.
[/B]

Why would they reference 3-7-4 for question #5?? 3-7-4 states "During a down a replaced player or substitute who attempts unsuccessfully to LEAVE the field and who does not participate in or affect the play, constitutes an illegal substitution." The question asks "If substitute B12 ENTERS the field during a down but does not participate or influence the play, it is a nonplayer foul."

The correct reference would be 2-30-10 which states "a nonplayer is a coach, trainer, other attendant, a substitute or a replaced player who does not participate by touching the ball, hindering an opponent or influencing the play. See 9-5 for illegal participation." That is what would make the question true.

[BktBallRef]

Patton, I have no idea. The listed references are 3-7-4 and 2-16-2e. What do you think? Is #5 true or false?

MJT, based on 2-30-10, B12 is a substitute, a non-player. Why is it not a non-player foul and why isn't the penalty IS?

[Patton]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Patton, I have no idea. The listed references are 3-7-4 and 2-16-2e. What do you think? Is #5 true or false?

MJT, based on 2-30-10, B12 is a substitute, a non-player. Why is it not a non-player foul and why isn't the penalty IS?

First off, let's throw out the reference 3-7-4. I think we can all agree it doesn't apply.

After reading 2-16-2e, I would have to answer this question false. 2-16-2e basically defines illegal participation as NOT a nonplayer foul and 9-6-4a now says "It is illegal participation when any player, replaced player or substitute enters during a down".

So illegal participation is not a nonplayer foul even though it can be committed by what's defined as a "nonplayer". Clear as mud!!


[Edited by Patton on Aug 4th, 2005 at 06:57 PM]

[MJT]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Patton, I have no idea. The listed references are 3-7-4 and 2-16-2e. What do you think? Is #5 true or false?

MJT, based on 2-30-10, B12 is a substitute, a non-player. Why is it not a non-player foul and why isn't the penalty IS?

Look at your 04 rule book, and then your 05 rule book. In 05 rule 9-6-4-a is an added rule which when read make #5 false without a doubt.

The rule committee wanted to make this less of a judgement for us, (participated or not) and thus made the change. This was explicitly covered at the rules meeting I was at last night.

[BktBallRef]

I've read the rule changes, attended the state clinic, and don't disagree with you. I just think the Fed has a lot of loose ends with this change.

[cowbyfan1]

Here is what I am getting after looking into the more and more. It is being looked at as a non player foul since the sub ran onto the field after the snap and did not interfere. Last year when it was called an IS it was 5 yards from the basic spot (sucseeding spot). This year it is called an IP and carries a 15 yard walk off from the basic spot. The Fed is still looking at it as a non player type foul tho and that is why 9-6-b is saying what it is.

ref rule 2-30-10 a NON PLAYER is a coach, trainer, other attendant, SUBSTITUE, OR A REPLACED PLAYER WHO DOES NOT PARTICIPATE BY TOUCHING THE BALL, HINDERING AN OPPONENET OR INFLUENCING THE PLAY. SEE 9-6 FOR IP.
rule 9-6-4-a IP when any player, replaced player or sub enters during the down.
rule 10-4-5-c The basic spot is the suceeding spot for a NON PLAYER foul.

So in this case, even if a TD is scored and you have this flag the ball will marked off on the try or suceeding spot.

The case of the multiple players coming on the field and blocking B players would be a Multiple foul case for each player coming off the sideline and B would get the choice of where to mark it off from, which in the case would be the spot the most distance from the goal line (which may or may not be the first player to enter and get involved).