Clarification of new IP enforcement

[ljudge]

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?

[Warrenkicker]

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.

[ljudge]

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.

[MJT]

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.

[ljudge]

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

*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 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.

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

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?

[bomberjeff]

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

[MJT]

Originally posted by ljudge
OK, here's the correction from the fed site...

*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 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.

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

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?

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.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally posted by MJT
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.[/B]

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.

[MJT]

Originally posted by The Roamin' Umpire

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. [/B]

Good point Roamin'Umpire!

[ljudge]

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?

[MJT]

Originally posted by ljudge
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.

[ljudge]

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?

[MJT]

Originally posted by ljudge
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.

[cowbyfan1]

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.

[ljudge]

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.