Re: NF interpretation
 

Great interpretation. I still wasn't sure if A could choose to free kick on the 2nd play until I read your post. Now it makes perfect sense. Nice job and thank you!

Well, I disagree 100%.

If this were a 1st and 10 play that went only 3 yards, the LOD after the 5 yard penalty would make it 2nd and 12, correct? You're not replaying the down, so in this sitch, a free kick would not be allowed.

So make the play go 12 yards. Team A achieved the line to gain, but after the penalty it's 2nd and 3. LOD. No replay of down. No free kick allowed.

Back to the play in question then - team A goes more than 15 yards. 5 yard penalty and LOD, although since team A is still across the LTG, it's actually 1st and 10 again. Surely we are not allowing a freekick here after a LOD penalty is enforced against A, simply because the play before the penalty went more than 15 yards. This goes against the very principle of not allowing a penalty to HELP the offending team.

I believe the "LOD has no significance if..." part is to keep us from stupidly beginning a new series as 2nd and 10 after a penalty like this. (If the book didn't have this phrase, there would be some who would contend that LOD on a play like this DOES warrant a 2nd and 10 - since this is not what the framers wanted, they put in this phrase). It's my contention that this phrase was not meant to say we "replay the down" if Team A achieved a 1st down, which would in turn allow the freekick based on the other rules.

Your thoughts?

LOD is loss of the "right to replay a down"(2-7-2)

Choices remain if a foul occurs and the down is replayed. 6-5-4

If a LOD penalty occurs, no matter what down it was, or will be, you are not replaying the down, based on the defenition of LOD, so you lose the option of free kick on a LOD penalty.

REPLY: I agree with mcrowder and MJT on this one. Since the foul was an illegal forward pass which includes the "loss of the right to replay the down" (NF 10-1-6), A's option to free kick is gone if B accepts the penalty for that foul. The fact that A gained enough yardage so that the loss of down isn't significant isn't really important. What's important is that their foul includes as one of its provision the loss of the right to replay the down.

Fundamental X,9 and 5-2-2
 

I contend that these rules say the there is no LOD for an illegal foward pass where, after enforcement,leaves A with the ball beyond the LTG. Thus the penalty, if accepted, causes the down to be replayed and the fair catch options to continue (6-5-4).

Re: Fundamental X,9 and 5-2-2
 

Fundamental X-9 does not say it is not a LOD, it says it is not "significant". It is still of LOD foul, it's just that since the LTG was reached it really doesn't matter cuz it will be 1st down. That is why the free kick is done.

REPLY: Considering the new rule related to extending (or not) the period following a foul that includes loss of down, how would you handle this play:
<b>PLAY:</b> Team A trails by 2 points. 3rd and 10 from midfield. 0:05 remain in the 4th quarter. A10 runs to B's 5 whereupon, seeing that he will be stopped short of the goal line, he shuffles (passes) the ball forward to A88 who catches it in B's end zone. Time expires during the play.

Clearly, B must accept the penalty for the IFP. But after enforcement to B's 10, A would still be in advance of the line to gain. Are you also saying that since the LOD is not significant here, you <u>would</u> extend the period rather than enforce NF 3-3-4b??

No, I would not extend the period.

Rule 3-3-4 tells me that I can't extend the period in this situation, but 6-5-4 (2-7-2, Fund X,9) says I can allow A to retain their fair catch rights.

Do these rules appear to contradict themselves? Sure! But since when has the NF code been perfect or any where near it?

What about my statement. "Fundamental X-9 does not say it is not a LOD, it says it is not "significant". It is still of LOD foul, it's just that it is not significant since the LTG was reached it will be 1st down. That is why the free kick rule is terminated."

I'd love to be there when you explain to the opposing coach (...or assistant coach, after being forced to eject the head coach over this...) that you are allowing his opponent to kick a freekick to win the game because the foul committed by that team was more than 5 yards past the line to gain, and that because of slightly strange wording in the rulebook, intended to prevent the wordsmiths of the officiating world from awarding a new series that starts on 2nd down, you decide to read the words "not significant" to mean "eliminated".

Surely, in 99.999% of the cases of this type of penalty that we will see, the "loss of right to replay the down" is "not significant" ... but it sure as heck is in this 0.001% of the cases, and it is definitely significant to this particular coach (err.. assistant coach). You're going to tell the coach that it is not only not significant... but that, in your best Ed Hochuli interpretation, it is "not significant by RULE."

Good grief. Talk about intentionally warping the rules outside of their intent!

I'm being pig-headed on this.
Look at how the last paragraph of rule 6-5-4 is written. I'm adding labeled bulletted letters for emphasis.

"these choices remain if
(a) a dead ball foul occurs prior to the down,
(b) or a foul
(c) or an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed".

The part about the down is replayed applies to an IW situation in (c). It does not apply to (a) or to (b).

Given that fact, LOD or otherwise, it's my opinion that the option to free kick still exists.

Theisey, didn't you answer the question in one of your own previous posts about being able to rekick even though there was not an IW? You showed the caseplay where they can rekick even without an IW. Also, let's look at the exact wording and punctuation of rule 6-5-4. It says "These choices remain if a DB foul occus prior to the down, or a foul or IW occurs during the down and the down is replayed."

Now what this sentence is saying is that "the down will be replayed" for all three of those statements.

If that was not the case, case book play 6.5.4, which covers this exact situation would not allow for a rekick in situation (b), which it does. Here is 6.5.4 "SITUATION: R1 signals for a fair catch beyond the neutral zone on K's 40. K2 interferes with R1's opportunity to make the catch. R chooses an awarded catch and to put the ball in play with a snap. During the down: (a) A1 gains 15 yards and the coach of B is charged with an unsportsmanlike foul; or (b) B2 commits pass interference; or (c) an inadvertent whistle sounds during A1's forward pass. RULING: In (a), the unsportsmanlike foul during the down does not give A another choice to snap or free kick. However in (b), A may snap or free kick following penalty enforcement. In (c), the down is replayed and A has the option to snap or free kick. (10-4-4a)"

[Edited by MJT on Jan 11th, 2006 at 11:15 PM]

In case play (a) that UC foul did not occur prior to the down after the fair catch, it occurred after a play was run following the fair catch and that down is now over.
An example of a foul prior to the down after a fair catch would be defensive encroachment, or a dead ball substitution foul for 12 men on the field. Free kick option remains for those cases.

Just because there was an IW, doesn't mean the down will be replayed. Team-A might elect to take the results of the play. The IW is essentially ignored in that case and the option to free kick is gone. Only when they choose to accept the IW which means they are replaying the down does the free kick option remain.
I think will all agree on that.

What we don't seem to agree on is that the rule phrase that just says "or a foul" stands alone on it's own merit. I happen to think it does and it is not to be coupled with "and the down is replayed" which I believe is coupled with the IW case.

Like I said, I'm being pig-headed about this. Right or wrong but I think that is the intent.

That's it for now... I'm heading for the sack.

But you said it does not allow for a rekick in situation (b) and casebook play 6.5.4.(b) shows that it does. This is the proof. I just don't know how you can ignore that one when 6.5.4.b says you have DPI during the play, and the option to rekick is still available.

If you're taking (B) to mean literally "or a foul", and not include "and the down is replayed", then you must allow A a free kick anytime a foul occurs during the down AT ALL - even if the foul is not accepted. The down is only replayed if the foul IS accepted. Obviously this is not what was intended.