Clarification of new IP enforcement

[bomberjeff]

just went to my rules interp meeting here in Indiana last night....the conductor of the meeting stated that ANY player that comes onto the field of play after the snap IT IS to be considered IP....however, I think you have to use some judgment in the example that started all of this....if it happens 25-30 yards behind the play, I think you have to be able to use some judgment...

[MJT]

Originally posted by 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).

Cowboyfan, if you are saying that A35 comes onto the field after the snap at the 25 yard line and A just previously snapped the ball from the 10 yard line and ran for a TD, you are going to enforce from the SSpot, you are wrong. I hope after all this discussion you are not saying that.

The NEW rule 9-6-4-a says "it is IP when any player, replaced player, or substitute enters during a down." It is enforced from the BS, and all-but-one applies. We have had 4 different state supervisors all give the same answer to that one.

Now if you are discussing a different play, what is it, cuz I am missing it.

[cowbyfan1]

You better reread the rule MJT.. It says only from the basic spot and nothing about the all but one. I gave the rules reference in my post to back what I said. I have yet to see that anywhere else.
This being called IP is to make it a 15 yard foul as opposed to a 5 yarder and to make it easier on the officials to say it is IP as opposed to trying to decide if it is IP or IS. Enforcement is not an exception to IP, it is right in line with a non player foul.
My arguement is backed 100% by the rule book directly. Give my agrument to the state interpeter and see what he says then. If he says I am wrong press him for the actual rules to back his arguement.
Don't get hung up over it being called IP. People are getting hung up on the word participation. The player did not actually participate and by definition that makes this a non player foul.
Oh and it is also back by rule by 10-5-3 and 10-6.

[Edited by cowbyfan1 on Aug 6th, 2005 at 06:19 AM]

[BktBallRef]

cowboyfan1, I agree with your interpretation. I'm afraid that MJT is convinced he's right and is unwilling to listen to any other interpretation. The penaly section of the rule does indeed say that the penalty is enforced from the basic spot, not under the ABO.

While we're at it, take a look at #5 on the NFHS Part 1 Exam. MJT and I have argued this play as well, and I believe the NF backs up my argument. The statement reads,

5- If substitute B12 enters the field during a down but does not participate or influence the play, it is a non-player foul.

I believe this to be a true statement. The NFHS answer key also says the statement is true. Also, an almost identical question is in the NFHS Interps on their website.

*5.1.2 SITUATION B, PAGE 34: During A1’s run for a first down to B’s 20-yard line, B12 commits a nonplayer foul for a substitute entering the field during the down, but not touching the ball, influencing the play, etc.

RULING: If the official determines B12’s act of entering the field to be a foul, and it is accepted, the penalty for B entering during the down is enforced from the previous spot. (9-5-1a; 9-6-1a)

Seems pretty cut and dry to me that #5 is a true statement based on 3-7-4 and 2-30-10.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 6th, 2005 at 12:20 PM]

[MJT]

First of all, I always listen to others arguments and admit willingly when I am wrong, or when I change my mind. I do all of those often without blinking an eye. I also don’t like the rule if we are to had this huge penalty – I will use common sense to not have a 40-60 yard penalty, and don’t think I will even have to deal with it.

A few things for us to discuss, without getting pointed towards the others opinion.

Penalty enforcement is based on the all but one principle. All fouls accept fouls by A behind the BS are enforced from the BS, with the only exceptions being those in 10-5. Do any of you know a time when we do not use the all but one? Yes, we have BS enforcements, but if A fouls behind the BS we always enforce from the spot of the foul. I just cannot think of a time when we do not.

So let me make sure I am on the same page with what you are saying cowboyfan1 and BktBallRef.

If A58 runs in from the B30 after the snap from the B10, and A scores but A58 never got involved in the play, you would rule “nonplayer four” and enforce on the try? I like that much better myself.

What if A58 runs in at the 50 after the snap from the B40, and still never gets involved in the play? Are you still going with a NP foul and enforce from SS? If so, you’re consistent, if not, why not?

Best case scenario. Does anyone know the “head guy” at the NF, so we could pose the play which may or may not have this HUGE penalty and use cowboyfan1’s defense and see what he says, and if we could something on the NF website to clear this up. I really think that if I went “higher up” you may be correct in how to handle this, AND I LIKE IT BETTER MYSELF, but 4 state supervisors so far have said it would by the big penalty, BUT to use common sense.

Now cowboyfan1, I do have one question on something you said yesterday. You said “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).” IMO if you have multiple players from either side who come onto the field and getting involved in the play giving their team 14 players or more, I will be invoking 9-9-3 (unfair acts).

So, is anyone of you from Pennsylvania and could contact Brad Cashman who is the chair of the NFHS rules committee?

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by MJT
First of all, I always listen to others arguments and admit willingly when I am wrong, or when I change my mind.

Not this time, my friend. You've been unbending and dogmatic is all the discussions with regard to this rule.

You would not listen to any discussion I had concerning #5 on the NF Part 1 exam. Now I've provided a play from the NF site. Do you still maintain that #5 is false?

Penalty enforcement is based on the all but one principle. All fouls accept fouls by A behind the BS are enforced from the BS, with the only exceptions being those in 10-5. Do any of you know a time when we do not use the all but one?

You're kidding, right. I can give you dozens of examples of fouls that are not penalized based on ABO.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 6th, 2005 at 09:36 PM]

[MJT]

Originally posted by BktBallRef

Not this time, my friend. You've been unbending and dogmatic is all the discussions with regard to this rule.

You would not listen to any discussion I had concerning #5 on the NF Part 1 exam. Now I've provided a play from the NF site. Do you still maintain that #5 is false?

You're kidding, right. I can give you dozens of examples of fouls that are penalized based on ABO.

Dogmatic is pretty harsh! Regarding question number 5, it says "if substitute B12 enters the field during a down but does not participate or influence the play, it is a nonplayer foul." On the NF webpage, under casebook clarifications it says, and I quote "*9.6 COMMENT, Page 71: b: If a substitute enters the field during the down, but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play(the bold preceding this has been crossed out) it is illegal participation and a live-ball foul enforced from the basic spot. (9-6-4a) NOTE: Based on the rules change, officials are strongly encouraged to make certain that the substitute’s entry into the field had some impact on the play and was not incidental to viewing the game or simply being in the bench area."
Now if I am missing something, let me know, but that seems pretty clear that with the NF clarification, which is what #5 says, it is False. Seeing that, do you still disagree? If so, no problem, we disagree.

No, I am serious, other than the exceptions in 10-5, which I did mention above, what are other A penalties not enforced by the all but one? Maybe I am missing something here as well.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by MJT
Dogmatic is pretty harsh! Regarding question number 5, it says "if substitute B12 enters the field during a down but does not participate or influence the play, it is a nonplayer foul." On the NF webpage, under casebook clarifications it says, and I quote "*9.6 COMMENT, Page 71: b: If a substitute enters the field during the down, but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play(the bold preceding this has been crossed out) it is illegal participation and a live-ball foul enforced from the basic spot. (9-6-4a) NOTE: Based on the rules change, officials are strongly encouraged to make certain that the substitute’s entry into the field had some impact on the play and was not incidental to viewing the game or simply being in the bench area."
Now if I am missing something, let me know, but that seems pretty clear that with the NF clarification, which is what #5 says, it is False. Seeing that, do you still disagree? If so, no problem, we disagree.

Yes MJT, you are missing something. You posted it and you're still MISSING it!

Yes, the term but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play has been crossed out. It was crossed out because it doesn't apply. It should never have been printed. Can you not see that?

Read *5.1.2 SITUATION B, in the same set of interpretations.

During A1’s run for a first down to B’s 20-yard line, B12 commits a nonplayer foul for a substitute entering the field during the down, but not touching the ball, influencing the play, etc. Immediately following the down, A1 taunts an opponent. RULING: If the official determines B12’s act of entering the field to be a foul, and it is accepted, the penalty for B entering during the down is enforced from the previous spot. After the decision in this foul, A will be penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct and A will have the ball 1st and 10. (9-5-1a; 9-6-1a)

The portion in italics was added to warn us not to call this if it has no affect on the play.

That's the EXACT SAME PLAY as #5. And it says right there that B12 commits a NON-PLAYER FOUL. So how can you tell me that it's not a non-player foul? That makes no sense, my friend.

[MJT]

Ok, I'm off on this one and it had fried my brain. I'm moving on to other posts before my brain explodes. Take care!

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by MJT
Ok, I'm off on this one and it had fried my brain. I'm moving on to other posts before my brain explodes.

LOL! I don't think that's all your fault. It's fried mine too. I don't think the Fed has fully examined all the possible scenarios, which is why we're seeing all these changes posted on the website. I bet there's more to come.

[mikesears]

I don't mean to be dense, but I still don't understand this.

Rule 2-30-10: 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 9-6 for illegal participation.

Rule 2-30-15: A substitute is a team member who may replace a player or fill a player vacancy. A substitute becomes a player when he enters the field and communicates with a teammate or an official, enters the huddle, is positioned in a formation or participates in the play. An entering substitute is not considered to be a player for encroachment restrictions until he is on his team’s side of the neutral zone. A team member entering the field to fill a player vacancy remains a substitute until he is on his team’s side of the neutral zone.

Rule 2-30-12: A replaced player is one who has been notified by a substitute that he is to leave the field. A player is also replaced when the entering substitute becomes a player.

Hopefully, we know what a coach, trainer, and other team attendents are without definitions.

Rule 9-6-4a: It is illegal participation when any player, replaced player or substitute enters during a down.

This says nothing about entering an participating. The rule simply says, enters DURING the down.

The Penalty Summary Says: Live ball, basic spot foul.

-----------------------------------------------------------

Casebook play 5.1.2.b: During A1’s run for a first down to B’s 20-yard line, B12 commits a nonplayer foul for a substitute entering the field during the down, but not touching the ball, influencing the play, etc. Immediately following the down, A1 taunts an opponent.

Ruling: If accepted, the penalty for B entering during the down is enforced from the previous spot. WHY THE PREVIOUS SPOT? After the decision in this foul, A will be penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct and A will have the ball 1st and 10. (9-5-1a; 9-6-1a)

Note that 9-5-1a addresses baiting and taunting (the unsportsmanlike conduct) and there is no Rule 9-6-1a. Could they have meant 9-6-4a which addresses a player, substitute or replaced player entering during the down?

Onto more of my confusion......

According to the penalty enforcement section, non player fouls are enforced from the succeeding spot. (10-4-5c).

In the casebook play provided, they go directly against all of the rules regarding penalty enforcment. First, they call this a non-player foul. Second, this is a running play. The basic spot for a running play is the spot where the run ends. Unless they want this treated as a foul simultaneous with the snap, but I don't see how that can apply, because the player likely wouldn't be coming onto the field right at the snap.

I AM VERY CONFUSED BY THIS...... I NEED SOME HELP UNDERSTANDING THIS.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I just got back from vacation and looked at this thread. (I think I need to go back on vacation !!!)

Needless to say, the Fed didn't fully think this one through and their rule book, case book, and even their Part 1 exam are all inconsistent. [Sounds like PSK 2003 all over again.] YES...the Fed answer key says that #5 is TRUE and does cite 3-7-4 as its governing reference. How that can be in light of the new rule is beyond me. YES...the COMMENT on page 71 in the case book (b & c) does appear to specify different enforcements--one at the basic spot and the other according to the all-but-one. Why they would use different language if they wanted the penalties enforced the same way, I'll never understand. I think BBR and KWH's 'epilogue' say it all: If a player steps onto the field way behind the play with no intention whatsoever of participating, I DIDN'T SEE IT !!!

I don't know why they changed this rule. Judging participation or not isn't all that hard. It's a heck of a lot easier the judging DPI. They should have left it the way it was.

But that said, they really need to get their act together when they change these rules to make sure they do it completely, and maintain consistency across the rule book, case book, and even their exams.

[cowbyfan1]

amen brother Bob! Seems like that try making a major change and it takes them at least 2 years to clean up their mess from the original change.

[BktBallRef]

Had some correspondence with a member of the committee who also officiates. They're aware of the confusion and contradiction in some of the rulings and are working to clear it up.

[MJT]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Had some correspondence with a member of the committee who also officiates. They're aware of the confusion and contradiction in some of the rulings and are working to clear it up.

PRAISE THE LORD!!!