Flaw in new loss of down rule!

[ljudge]

I'm not sure if anyone posted this or not but I was thinking of a play that I had last Turkey day with a team in the shadow of it's own goal line (ball on 4) with less than a minute remaining ahead 14-7. The coach wanted the punter on 4th down to scramble a bit and step over the endline for an intentional safety. If he did it without being facemasked (which happened) it would have left little or no time on the clock.

Now say that punter muffed the snap and in a haste threw the ball away as time ran out. This new rule does a nice job about not allowing A to gain an advantage "going in" but does not so good of a job in "going out."

If A had thrown that pass it would have been a safety either way. Now because of the loss of down / no untimed down B would not have an opportunity to put the ball in play.

How would you explain to the coach that the game is over and there's nothing he could do to get the ball for at least a free kick with an opportunity to win the game on a return? This was not thought through.

[w_sohl]

Should have played better defense. Rules still sounds fine to me, does a hell of a lot more good than harm.

[Warrenkicker]

As best I can tell the Fed wasn't worried about B getting this play anymore because if there had not been a foul they would not have gotten a play. So as well as A not being able to benefit, B does not also get a free play. Sounds reasonable to me.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by ljudge
How would you explain to the coach that the game is over and there's nothing he could do to get the ball for at least a free kick with an opportunity to win the game on a return? This was not thought through.

Without the rule change, a good coach would simply have his kicker tee it up, nudge the ball off the tee and possess the ball. B(R) would not have a chance to return it and the game would be over.

The scenario where the rule change becomes problematic to some is when A throws an illegal forward pass in the field of play on 4th down.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by mikesears

Without the rule change, a good coach would simply have his kicker tee it up, nudge the ball off the tee and possess the ball. B(R) would not have a chance to return it and the game would be over.

The scenario where the rule change becomes problematic to some is when A throws an illegal forward pass in the field of play on 4th down.

Exactly, that's the bigger problem. Good point Mike.

[WhistlesAndStripes]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

Exactly, that's the bigger problem. Good point Mike.

And why is this a problem?

[whaddayouknow]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
As best I can tell the Fed wasn't worried about B getting this play anymore because if there had not been a foul they would not have gotten a play. So as well as A not being able to benefit, B does not also get a free play. Sounds reasonable to me.

if there had not been a foul... or if A had declined the penalty.

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by Whistles & Stripes

And why is this a problem?

Because, say A has the ball and its 4th and 10 on A's 20. B is down by 3 points. A throws an illegal forward pass that makes a first down. If B accepts the game is over, where in previous years we would have an untimed down so B could kick a field goal.

[ljudge]

How would you phrase an edit to make this fair?

I was thinking something like...

"Exception: If lost after 4th down team B shall have the opportunity to run an untimed down if they so choose to."

Would this cover it? If not, how would you change it?

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I brought this play up the day after the Fed released its 2005 rule changes. Except in mine, the inequity was a little more obvious.

PLAY: A's ball 4-10 from A's 5. 0:04 remain in the fourth quarter. A leads 13-10. A10 muffs the snap. He recovers at his 1 yard line. Seeing he's about to get creamed, he throws a desperation pass to no one in the flats. During the pass, time expires. RULING (2005): We're all going home. A has successfully used a foul to end the game. In 2004, it would have been B's ball, 1-G at A's 1/2 yardline.

Or you could end the play like this: On the pass, B is about to intercept for an easy TD. A88 realizes this and pulls him down before the pass gets there. Same ruling: Let's go home. OPI carries LOD.

Kevin (KWH), Steve (SRH) and I developed some wording intended to close this gap. Steve and Kevin are the state interpreters from their respective states. I'm just a poor slob in NJ. Kevin presented it at the Fed meeting in Indianapolis. The Fed recognizes the problem and are reviewing it. The wording we came up with would essentially cancel any scores by the offending team and give the offended team the option of extending or not.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: By the way...that was my 1000th post. I'm celebrating!!

[Snake~eyes]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I brought this play up the day after the Fed released its 2005 rule changes. Except in mine, the inequity was a little more obvious.

I thought mine was pretty obvious!

Why don't they just give the team the option to decline, accept and end the period or accept and have an untimed down.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by Snake~eyes

I thought mine was pretty obvious!

Why don't they just give the team the option to decline, accept and end the period or accept and have an untimed down.

REPLY: You're right...it was pretty obvious. I was comparing mine to ljudge's original play where the throw came from A's endzone. And your solution is pretty much what we came up with. Let the offended team decide whether to etend or not and cancel all scores by the offending team.