I was looking closely at the new IP verbage this morning and want to make I understand this thing correctly. This updated IP rule seems to have an exception to the all-but-one principle.

Consider this play...

A's ball 1st and 10 from A's 40. A10 throws a forward pass and is caught by A81 at B's 45. A81 runs and finally downed at B's 5. During A81's run (ie: not part of loose-ball play) a member of team A came on to the field and attempted to be part of the play but never influenced the play or touched the ball.

According to the casebook (page 71 9.6 comment) this is a basic spot enforcement. See bullet b. This of course means that even though A's foul took place behind the basic spot it's still enforced from the basic spot and not the spot of the foul. I therefore have A's ball 1st and 10 at B's 20. I noticed there's an error published and it should read "succeeding spot" but either way it's enforced from B's 20.

This whole thing is similar to the old nonplayer foul except that it carries a 15-yard penalty.

Do I understand this correctly?

There was a question about this put on the NFHS board this morning as well. As I was looking at that it seemed to me as well that the spot of enforcement was "trying" to not use all-but-one but I couldn't really be sure that was what they were trying to do. That play had an A player coming onto the field after the ball was snapped and then leaving 40 yards behind the play. If this is an all-but-one enforcement then it is a HUGE penalty, like something and goal from midfield.

I would hope that IP would be enforced from the basic spot and not the spot of the foul but then that leaves an opening for when the IP does affect the play. Like if a team ran 60 guys onto the field during one play and score the touchdown. Only one IP would then be enforced on the try. (Now I know that example falls under "making a travesty" but what if it was only one or two players from the sideline)

I would like to see it enforced as a succeeding spot if the IP did not affect the play and a spot foul of where the play was affected if the IP did affect the play. However it is IP just to come onto the field so he should be flagged there. To know where he affected the play, you'd have to throw another flag at that spot.

WK - the way you want it is in fact how it works. If a player affects the play it's an all-but-one situation; otherwise, the way I'm reading it then it's not. From what I understand it's darn near similar to how the old non-player illegal substitution foul worked, except that the one bit of phrasing that took place in the case book correction has me confused.

It changed the word from "basic" to "succeeding" which leads me to believe if A had scored during the play the score could possibly stand with enforcement on the try, hence a succeeding spot. If it remained at basic spot and A had scored, then enforce the IP from the goal line as a live-ball player foul. I'm still confused on this component of it.

From the comments in the case book though it appears as though the way you think it should work, it indeed does.

I just got off the phone with a state supervisor and he said, this year it would be a basic spot enforcement and you could have that HUGE penalty. He said it may be adjusted next year.

Now if that is my crew, if it is by the offense, and might be that HUGE penalty, we didn't see him come onto the field until after the play if at all possible. A 40-60 yard penalty is NOT the intent of the rule.

I think they should make it succeeding spot enforcement if he does not participate in the play, and a basic spot if he DOES. That would take care of it pretty good.

OK, here's the correction from the fed site...

*9.6 COMMENT, Page 71: b: If a substitute enters the field during the down, <b>but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play</b> 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.

<b>The BOLD piece above is now CROSSED OUT on the fed's web page.</b>

So, my question remains. If this happens during the original play I have stated then all-but-one does NOT apply and you have a basic spot (end of run) enforcement.

Assuming I'm correct then if the original play I described happened to be a score does the score stand, or is this treated as a live-ball player foul enforced from the goal line, 1st and 10 from the 15?

IP enforcement
 

As a former wing official, now wearing the white hat, I have to say if the player stepped on the field way behind the play, then I am not going to "notice" the infraction....i don't feel as the rule is intended to hurt a team just because some kid steps out two or three steps on the field 20 or 25 yards behind the play.....

NOW, if he comes out into the middle of the play, right at the point of action, then you are forced to make a call....the tough part is how they have rewritten the rule with the basic spot....I think that is going to be a tougher sell to the head coach

Ljudge, by crossing out the bolded text above they are saying that it is a basic spot enforcement any time he comes into the field during a down, whether he makes contact or influences the play, or not. Notice also that in the rule book, a rule change in 2005 is 9-6-4-a states “It is IP when any player, replaced player, or substitute enters during a down.” The penalty enforcement for this is 15 from BS, and 9-6-4-b-f are PS enforcements. This was NOT in last years book. This is exactly why it is a BS enforcement, not succeeding or PS. I don’t like it, but for this year we are stuck with it. That is exactly what the state supervisor I talked to said.

So in your original play, it is a basic spot enforcement from where the A player entered the field. We are going to have a BIG penalty. That is why I said if at all possible, say you saw him after he crossed the goal line. Then we would have a DB foul, enforced on the try.

Unfortunately, I don't think your easy out works. If he comes onto the field after the ball broke the plane, there's NO foul - substitutes are allowed onto the field once the ball is dead. Either you hit for the BIG penalty, or you don't hit him at all.

Good point Roamin'Umpire!

MJT, the basic spot is not where he entered the field. By definition the basic spot during a running play is the end of the run. In the spot you mention it's the "spot of the foul" which is where he entered the field. But again, the spot of the foul and basic spot are different.

I'm definitely seeing this different from what you are and don't necessarily mean to imply I'm correct.

What am I missing?

Correct, the basic spot is the end of the run, but this is a foul by the offense behind the basic spot, so that it where the penalty is enforced. All-but-one penalty enforcement - see rule 10-6 pages 72-73.

OK, I see how we're missing here. I clearly understand all-but one. I better had since I work the referee position in my crew. The reason I'm asking the question I'm asking is because for the OTHER IP fouls where the play is affected they clearly state the basic spot and tell you to apply all-but one. In the case where there is no interference with the play they say enforce from the basic spot.

Please take a look at the comment on page 71 of the case book. See the difference between bullet b and c. Then, you'll see why I'm asking this question.

I'm GUESSING that since an A player did not influence the play they said the basic spot and didn't want us to consider all-but-one. I hope my inquiry now makes sense. Frankly, I realize it almost sounds like I'm asking a penalty enforcement 101 question. I almost am. But, this comment has me a thinking they want this one foul enforced differently (meaning, throw out all-but-one).

Perhaps I'm reading to much into it. But again why would the fed go out of their way to cite all-but-one in one bullet and not the other. My line of thinking was they wanted this enforced similar to the old non-player foul but take a possible previous spot into enforcement if the foul happened during loose-ball play and end of run for running play.

Whew! That's it. Am I making sense of this?

Making sense what you are saying and I was suprised by your earlier response cuz I know you from your posts and are very knowledgable. I see the differences in the case book references you stated. The SD state guy I called said apply all but one, but I am calling my Iowa super tomorrow morning and will ask him and point out these differences. I called the SD guy cuz we discussed it at a clinic I was at in SD this summer. I like your scenario much better. I was just thinking though, is there any other time when a foul by the offense is not enforced by the all but one priciple??? I cannot think of one off the top of my head. That kind of throws another kink in this thing.

2004 case book said it is an IP enforced in the all but 1 in the case of a sub coming on the field and influences the play (page 73) or if a non player hinders an opponent off the field of play it is ip also enforced under all but 1.
If he did not influence then is was illegal sub and 5 yard from suceeding spot. So to me they are just trying to enforce it like last year but making it a 15 yarder instead.

Yes, MJT, it does appear to throw another kink in this but I believe (if we understand correctly) the new verbage supports what we want. And, as cowbyfan1 says it's similar to last year's enforcement, albeit 15 yards and since it's basic and not succeeding it would also (I think) nullify any score but not bring a huge penalty in terms of yards.

MJT - please ask your state interpreter and let us know what you learn and I'll do the same here in N.J.

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?

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. <b>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. </b>

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.

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

As per 9-6-4a... <b>
If he comes on the field during the down <u>it is IP</b></u>

As per 9-6-4a penalty...<b>
Live Ball, <u>Basic spot</b></u>

As per 10-6...
<b>If the offense fouls behind the basic spot <u>it is a spot foul</b></u>

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

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

Agreed KWH.

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.

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.

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]

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.

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]

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.

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.

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).

IN rules interp
 

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...

Cowboyfan, if you are saying that A35 comes onto the field <b>after</b> 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.

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]

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]

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. <b>I also don’t like the rule</b> 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?

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 not penalized based on ABO.

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

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, <b>but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play</b>(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, <b>other than the exceptions in 10-5, </b> 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.

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

Yes, the term <b>but does not make any contact with an opponent or touch the ball and does not influence the play</b> 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.

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!

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.

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.

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.

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.

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!!!

5.1.2 SITUATION B
 

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:

<b>*5.1.2 SITUATION B:</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. <b>RULING:</b> 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) <b>(10-6)</b>

NOTE:
Before <b>ljudge</b> 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. <b>The CASE Book is a supplement to the rules book.</b> (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 <b>BOBM</b> metioned above.)

Some people seem to be confused over where the penalty is enforced from if the wording says <b>BASIC SPOT</b> or <b>ALL-BUT-ONE</b>.
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, <b>Under the new rule, if <u>he</u> comes on to the field during live ball play, <u>he participated!</u></b>
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.

Re: 5.1.2 SITUATION B
 

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.

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.

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

Re: Re: 5.1.2 SITUATION B
 

[QUOTE]Originally posted by cowbyfan1
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.
I agree. and it clearly states in the PENALTY: <b>LIVE BALL BASIC SPOT</b> thus Rule 10-6 is clearly applicable.
If you continue reading, you will see rule 10-6 which states <b>Unless otherwise listed</b> 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. <b>This particula foul is enforced from the spot of the foul.</b>
<b>Can you find anywhere in Section 4 or 5 where Illegal Particiaption is<u>otherwise listed?</u></b>
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.
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.
You are correct, 9-6-4a says the IP foul will be enforced as a <b>live ball</b> from the Basic Spot, which means 10-6 is applicable.
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.

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.

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...

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.

There ya go!

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.