Clarification of new IP enforcement

[KWH]

First a little history...

*5.1.2 SITUATION B was added to the case book in 2003
5.1.2 SITUATION B was unchanged in the case book in 2004
*5.1.2 SITUATION B was modified in the case book in 2005

New or revised plays in the case book are preceded with an asterick(*) prior to the case play.

Whomever the member responsible for revising *5.1.2 SITUATION B made an error.

In my opinion THE FOLLOWING IS THE CORRECT REVISION:

*5.1.2 SITUATION B: During A1's run for a first down to B's 20 yard line, B12 commits a foul for entering the field during a down. Immediatly following the down, A1 taunts an opponent. RULING: If accepted, the live-ball penalty for B12 entering during a down is enforced from the basic spot and in accordance with the all-but-one principle. After the decision in this foul, A will be penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. (9-5-1a) (9-5-4a) (10-3-2) (10-3-3) (10-4-1) (10-4-4) (10-6)

NOTE:
Before ljudge and others get on here and rip me for quoting the rule or pointing out that the Case Book (Page 71) suggests their might be an exception to this rule let me say this. The CASE Book is a supplement to the rules book. (It says so on page 2)
The Rules we are under obligated to officiate under are found in the RULE BOOK only and no place else.

Historically, a rule change takes a few years to get caught up in the various pulications. eg PSK 2003 (as BOBM metioned above.)

Some people seem to be confused over where the penalty is enforced from if the wording says BASIC SPOT or ALL-BUT-ONE.
For the purpose of of our discussion and sample play; a player, replaced player, or substitute entering during a down (as per 9-6-4a) it makes no difference whether you prefer to say BASIC SPOT enforcment or ALL-BUT-ONE enforcment. If the foul is committed by the offense behind the basic spot the ALL-BUT-ONE shall be used. (SEE Rule 10-6)

Epliogue:
Whomever wrote 5.1.2 SITUATION B AND 9.6 COMMENT in the 2005 CASE BOOK may have misunderstood what was discussed in at the rules commitee meeting in January. Frankly, there was alot of "Frank and Open" discussion regarding this rule change and perhaps more time could have been devoted to this rule. However what was made perfectly clear was this, Under the new rule, if he comes on to the field during live ball play, he participated!
While these case book situations undoubtly can be interpreted to suggest their may be an exception to this rule, if you consult the rule book you will find no such exception.

Best advice for 2005:
1) Keep you flaged tucked neatly into your britches, and pay attention only to fouls which directly affect the play.
2) Make sure a little time is devoted to this situation in your pregame.
3) See number 1 above

I hope this helps.

[cowbyfan1]

Originally posted by KWH
First a little history...

*5.1.2 SITUATION B was added to the case book in 2003
5.1.2 SITUATION B was unchanged in the case book in 2004
*5.1.2 SITUATION B was modified in the case book in 2005

New or revised plays in the case book are preceded with an asterick(*) prior to the case play.

Whomever the member responsible for revising *5.1.2 SITUATION B made an error.

In my opinion THE FOLLOWING IS THE CORRECT REVISION:

*5.1.2 SITUATION B: During A1's run for a first down to B's 20 yard line, B12 commits a foul for entering the field during a down. Immediatly following the down, A1 taunts an opponent. RULING: If accepted, the live-ball penalty for B12 entering during a down is enforced from the basic spot and in accordance with the all-but-one principle. After the decision in this foul, A will be penalized 15 yards for unsportsmanlike conduct. (9-5-1a) (9-5-4a) (10-3-2) (10-3-3) (10-4-1) (10-4-4) (10-6)

NOTE:
Before ljudge and others get on here and rip me for quoting the rule or pointing out that the Case Book (Page 71) suggests their might be an exception to this rule let me say this. The CASE Book is a supplement to the rules book. (It says so on page 2)
The Rules we are under obligated to officiate under are found in the RULE BOOK only and no place else.

Historically, a rule change takes a few years to get caught up in the various pulications. eg PSK 2003 (as BOBM metioned above.)

Some people seem to be confused over where the penalty is enforced from if the wording says BASIC SPOT or ALL-BUT-ONE.
For the purpose of of our discussion and sample play; a player, replaced player, or substitute entering during a down (as per 9-6-4a) it makes no difference whether you prefer to say BASIC SPOT enforcment or ALL-BUT-ONE enforcment. If the foul is committed by the offense behind the basic spot the ALL-BUT-ONE shall be used. (SEE Rule 10-6)

Epliogue:
Whomever wrote 5.1.2 SITUATION B AND 9.6 COMMENT in the 2005 CASE BOOK may have misunderstood what was discussed in at the rules commitee meeting in January. Frankly, there was alot of "Frank and Open" discussion regarding this rule change and perhaps more time could have been devoted to this rule. However what was made perfectly clear was this, Under the new rule, if he comes on to the field during live ball play, he participated!
While these case book situations undoubtly can be interpreted to suggest their may be an exception to this rule, if you consult the rule book you will find no such exception.

Best advice for 2005:
1) Keep you flaged tucked neatly into your britches, and pay attention only to fouls which directly affect the play.
2) Make sure a little time is devoted to this situation in your pregame.
3) See number 1 above

I hope this helps.

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.

Under the new rule, if he comes on to the field during live ball play, he participated!

if that is the case then why does the play situation say "does not particiapte or influence"??? It is obvious it makes a difference in reguards to 2-30-10 and 10-4-5-c! Per the RULE book this has to be enforced from the basic spot, which in the situation is the end of the run. And the rule does not say if he runs on the field he participated, it says it will be enforced as an IP foul and per the rule book it will be treated as a non player IP foul. The case book is consistant with that as well by saying where it will be enforced from as well.

[MJT]

Great advice in your "best advice in 2005!" That applies to everything really, but especially the tricky stuff.

[KWH]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cowbyfan1

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.

Good point cowboy! 2-30-10 has not been updated from the 2004 rule book and can use a little tweaking. Otherwise people can become confused.

rule 9-6-4-a IP when any player, replaced player or sub enters during the down.

I agree. and it clearly states in the PENALTY: LIVE BALL BASIC SPOT thus Rule 10-6 is clearly applicable.

rule 10-4-5-c The basic spot is the suceeding spot for a NON PLAYER foul.

If you continue reading, you will see rule 10-6 which states Unless otherwise listed in Section 4 and 5, a penalty for a foul occuring during a play is enforced from the basic spot with the exception of a foul by the offesnse which occurs behind the basic spot during a loose ball play or running play. This particula foul is enforced from the spot of the foul.
Can you find anywhere in Section 4 or 5 where Illegal Particiaption isotherwise listed?

if that is the case then why does the play situation say "does not particiapte or influence"??? It is obvious it makes a difference in reguards to 2-30-10 and 10-4-5-c!

As I stated before 2-30-10 has yet to be updated.
10-4-5c is not applicable to this discussion as per the new rule this is no longer considered a non-player foul.

Per the RULE book this has to be enforced from the basic spot, which in the situation is the end of the run.

You are correct, unless the foul is by the offense behind the basic spot because as per Rule 10-6 this would then be a spot foul.

And the rule does not say if he runs on the field he participated, it says it will be enforced as an IP foul

You are correct, 9-6-4a says the IP foul will be enforced as a live ball from the Basic Spot, which means 10-6 is applicable.

And per the rule book it will be treated as a non player IP foul. The case book is consistant with that as well by saying where it will be enforced from as well. [/B]

Cowboy, the bottom line on this is simple. Every state has a state rules interpreter. In previous posts on this thread it has been stated the four of them agree with what I am stating. We can add a 5th to that as my state rules interpreter agrees with what I have been saying. However, if you can convinced you are correct and 5 state rules interpreters are incorrect contact your SRI for his interpretation. If he finds you to be correct, that is all well and good.
Are their conflicts in the rule book. You betcha, there are every year and there will be big ones like this anytime they make a change.
For the record the intent of this rule change was to further clean up the sidelines. In my humble opinion if a team is penalized 45 yards and a score is taken away I believe you will clean up your sideline in a hurry. However the new rule also is not administered equally when committed by the defense as opposed to the offense due to the all-but-one principle. Thus, perhaps an exception is in order to balance the penalties. However, while some are looking for this exception in the 2005 rule book it simply is not there. Any exception would need to be listed in Rule 9-4 or 9-5 for rule 10-6 not to apply. In the absence of any exception 10-6 must apply.
Still the best way is to handle this situation should it even arrise is to use a little discression. Most likely the wording will be much clearer in 2006.

[cowbyfan1]

Well I will find out tonight as we have our state rules meeting tonight.
As far as I am concerned this is non player because it fits the defintion of a non player foul to a T per the rule book and thus 10-4-5-c does apply. But we will see.
I also seriously doubt the Fed is looking at this possibly being potentionally a 30, 45, 85 or whatever type foul and thus the reason they stated it is a basic spot foul (as an additional reason on top of it being non player). If you can have player and non player fouls for USC, why not for IP. While I agree tradionally IP has not been I cannot see why the Fed would intend for this to be looked as strictly a player foul when by their own long standing definition it is not.

[KWH]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
Well I will find out tonight as we have our state rules meeting tonight.

Just a heads up, in the powerpoint presentation from the NFHS their is only one slide pertaining to Illegal Participation and it appears right after three slides in a row pertaining to Ilegal Substitition. It is slide number 13.

It will be good feedback to hear how your meeting went...

[cowbyfan1]

It went and the interpeter said, non player foul, 15 yards enforce from the basic spot. Gotta love this stuff. So I guess it will be what each state decides to do. IMO I would not want to be on a field where a touchdown is dropped off the board and there is something along the lines of a 40 yard penalty.

[KWH]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
...So I guess it will be what each state decides to do...

There ya go!

[jimbo]

I'm new to this board and have just spent the last hour reading through this thread. Interesting to say the least.

I know this has been beaten to death, but one thing no one has mentioned is the definition of fouls (2-16).

This particular foul, a substitute entering the field during the down and not participating, cannot be a nonplayer foul according to the definition: a noncontact foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress (2-16-2e).

Because this foul is now labeled illegal participation it no longer fits the definition of a nonplayer foul.

It's obvious (and disappointing) that the rule was not thoroughly thought through as there are conflicting rules regarding this.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by jimbo
I'm new to this board and have just spent the last hour reading through this thread. Interesting to say the least.

I know this has been beaten to death, but one thing no one has mentioned is the definition of fouls (2-16).

This particular foul, a substitute entering the field during the down and not participating, cannot be a nonplayer foul according to the definition: a noncontact foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress (2-16-2e).

Because this foul is now labeled illegal participation it no longer fits the definition of a nonplayer foul.

It's obvious (and disappointing) that the rule was not thoroughly thought through as there are conflicting rules regarding this.

REPLY: You're absolutely correct. That's one of the things that needs to be cleaned up. You can't call it a non-player foul and then penalize it as illegal participation.