R signals for and makes a fair catch at midfield. On the ensuing down, A22 runs for a TD. A65 holds B at B's 5 yardline. Let's discuss the options for dealing with this situation...and don't forget the clock. Federation and NCAA will differ.

For NCAA Team B can decline the penalty and accept the result of the play, a TD for team A. Most likely they will accept the penalty 10 yards from the spot of the foul (B-5 yard line) It will be A 1st and 10 from the B-15 and the clock will start on the snap.

I believe the difference here between the rulesets (and you FED guys can correct me if I'm wrong) is that in FED, Team A would have the option of a freekick after such a sequence.

REPLY: Shhh! Don't tell everybody. We're trying to keep it a secret.

Dang. I started to attempt my guess at NF and that is what my guess was, but I deleted because I thought since it didn't occur right after the fair catch and a play had been ran.

NF: Probably the most difficult option to consider would be do you inform team-A that since team-B is accepting the penalty would you now like to free kick from the b-15.

I know we tossed this around on one of the other boards just this past season. Don't know if any consenus was reached, but I for one am not going to say a thing. It's up to the coach to know and request this.

As far as the clock.. The TD stopped the clock. I think we all know by now what to do with it if the penalty is accepted. Under normal circumstances it would be accepted to wipe off the 6 points.

Why not mix it up?

R signals for and makes a fair catch at midfield. On the ensuing down, A22 runs to the 5 yard line where he laterals forward to A31 who runs for a touchdown.

Options and clock?

What's different in this play from the original. Unless you left out that this was during the last timed down of the game with team-A behind in the score, there is no difference.

Isn't an illegal forward pass a loss of down, which would mean a loss of the ability to freekick?

(What the heck is a "forward lateral" anyway... lateral means sideways, and forward means something entirely different).

That's what I was getting at. Isn't the right to choose a free kick lost in this case?

Fair enough. But I think you got the intent.

I agree that the penalty for illegal forward pass includes a loss of down. But that new rule doesn't kick in unless this is the last timed down of the game.

LOD has no significance since the line to gain has been reached after enforcement of the penalty. That's why I don't see any difference in this other play variation.

Two differences:
1. The LOD prevents A from choosing the free-kick option.
2. Since it is a loose-ball play, isn't the basic spot the previous spot? (I'm not clear on this part. What is the enforcement?)

My point in bringing up this scenario was to show that A loses its choice of a free-kick, since it is not the same down.

Taking second things first, an illegal forward pass beyond the line of scrimmage ("lateral forward") is a running play, not a loose ball play. Enforce from the spot of the foul.

First things second, in the play presented (Fair Catch at the 50, subsequent running play, foul by A at the 5) A would not be given the opportunity to choose to free kick from the 15 because a new series is awarded following enforcement. The down is not replayed. Had the foul been committed at the 31, enforcement would have left A in posession short of the line to gain and the down would be replayed. From there they would get to choose to free kick if they so desired.

Then how do you explain the ruling in case book play (b):

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)

In (b) team-A was awarded a first down after penalty enforcement. Isn't this a new series?

NF interpretation
 

In both plays the ball will be placed on the appropiate yardline (after measurement - B should accept the foul); it will be 1/10 for A, the clock will start on the snap (scoring down), and A retains its right to free kick or snap (6-5-4). This is fairly straight foward for the first play. In the second, there is the consideration of the LOD aspect of the illegal forward pass. Remember, LOD is loss of the "right to replay a down"(2-7-2). The LOD aspect of a penalty "has no significance ... if the line to gain has been reached after enforcement."(5-2-2, Fundamental X,9). Since the LOD is ignored, A retains the right to replay the down after enforcement (even though a new series is awarded) and, thus, retains the right of the Fair Catch options outlined in 6-5-4.

I see the basic question as this: Does the acceptance of a penalty mean that the down is replayed. I believe 5-2-2 answers that question as Yes!

Edited to correct rule reference.

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.

Well yes, by a foul I never had a doubt they are impling an accepted foul nor do I believe they meant a deadball foul after the play is over. But that doesn't mean the down has to be replayed as in the second play where the foul had an LOD part that really didn't have an affect on the enforcement.

Sorry, but I'm being very stubborn on this one.
Anyone feel like contacting NF for an official interpretation? I'll stick my tail between my legs if it comes back different than how I see it at this time.
Both plays should be submitted.


Oh well, I have to move off of football soon and move into the spring sports real soon, like really now. So any future replies by me will be far and few. If anyone does get an interpretation, please email it or a point me back to this forum.

REPLY: I'll refer the plays to Steve Hall, the state interpreter for New Hampshire. He seems to have had at least some success in getting answers back from Diehl. The rest of us peons aren't so lucky. The best I've received is his out-of-office e-mail. Let me make sure I've got it straight. The two plays we're considering are:
1. the original one I posted with A holding at B's 5, and
2. same play with A throwing an IFP at B's 5.

Right?

Those are the 2 plays.

Theisey, you will be missed! You always are great in discussions!

REPLY: Tom...missed your last sentence, but I understand that track & field calls! We'll keep a light on for you here till next season. Have you thought any more about the ECAC? And I will most definitely send you an e-mail when (if!!) we can get an answer from Diehl. You've got my e-mail...masucci <u>AT</u> att <u>DOT</u> com. Keep in touch, and I'll let you know about Ed Camp's spring clinic when he calls me with the info.

Thanks guys, I'll keep in touch. The discussion, arguments, case plays have been great. I wish more officials would find these kinds of sites and join in.
I'll email you soon Bob about the ECAC. If anyone else wants to talk off line, just send an email my way. I'll be glad to talk with ya.

Decline: A TD
Accept: A 1-10 @ B15 and choice of a free kick or snap
Clock: Snap

clock
 

Quick question regarding the clock on this subject.

Lets assume A does have the option of free-kicking after they've ran a play following the fair catch. Lets say the clock would have started on the ready. Would it still start on the ready if the team was free-kicking?

Re: clock
 

The clock always starts when the ball is touched, other than 1st touching by K, for a free kick. 3-4-2 says "The clock shall start on the RFP <b>other than a free kick</b> if the clock was stopped for...

REPLY: DrMooreReferee...MJT is correct that on <u>all</u> free kicks, the clock starts when the kick is legally touched. However, at one time (prior to 1991) under the conditions that you proposed, the clock would have started on the ready for the free kick. But those days are past! Now, for all free kicks, the clock starts when the kick is legally touched.

So let's talk about situation A. A's ball, 1st and 10 from the 15. A chooses to free-kick. Expand it to say there is 2 seconds left in the game. A kicks through the uprights, scoring a FG.

So on A's free kick (after the FG), the clock will still have 2 seconds, right?

What if A is farther back, say the 35. On the free kick, B1 jumps up in the EZ in an attempt to block the kick from going through the uprights. The ball hits B1's hand then goes through the upright (It still scores an FG, right?). Does the clock start on the touch since the ball is in the EZ?

REPLY: Obviously, not the type of situation you'd see very often, but...

<i>So on A's free kick (after the FG), the clock will still have 2 seconds, right?</i> <b>Correct.</b>

<i>The ball hits B1's hand then goes through the upright (It still scores an FG, right?)</i> <b>Correct again...the ball touched by B in B's endzone remains alive only for the purpose of scoring.</b>

<i>Does the clock start on the touch since the ball is in the EZ? </i> <b>This is the tough one, since it's so rare, but I would say no, the clock doesn't start at all on this play. Why? Look at the exception to rule 4-2-2d(2). It says, <i>"EXCEPTION: If a scoring attempt touches an upright or crossbar or an R player in the end zone and caroms through the goal, <u> the touching is ignored</u> and the attempt or try is successful."</i> (underlining is mine for emphasis). Since it says, <i>.the touching is ignored..."</i>that (to me) is an indication that the free kick hasn't been touched and the clock should not start.</b>

What do you think?

I agree, both from a rules standpoint (good eye for 4-2-2d) and from a practical standpoint. If the ball caroms off B's hand, then through the upright, by the time you start winding it will have gone through. So it makes sense not to wind it from a mechanical standpoint as well.

This has been a great discussion question and I respect the opinions on both sides of this debate.

6-5-4:
"ART. 4… The captain may choose to free kick or snap anywhere between the inbounds lines on the yard line through the spot of the catch when a fair catch is made or through the spot of interference, when a fair catch is awarded. These choices remain if a dead ball foul occurs prior to the down, or a foul or an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed.

The question is - does the phrase “and the down is replayed.” apply to both “a foul” and “inadvertent whistle”? Now I am certainly no English major, but grammatically the way it reads, I think it applies to both. The case play is the one that gives me a problem and where I disagree with some of you.

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)

In (b), team A retains the option to free kick. But with DPI - we are not replaying first down, we are awarding a new series of downs. (5-1-1) “… Each awarded first down starts a new series of four downs.”

My deduction of this - the phrase “and the play is replayed” only applies to an inadvertent whistle. If that is true, fouls with LOD would not change A’s options. A comma after the phrase “a foul” would clarify it if that is the NF intentions.

Now that is my interpretation of the the rule. This is my opinion: I think any foul by A should cause the forgiet of A's option to free kick. And the way the rule reads grammatically contradicts the case play.

BTW – The phrase “a foul” refers to a player foul. 2-16-2f

[Edited by dumbref on Jan 19th, 2006 at 01:03 PM]

I think it applies to all three. I do see the problem of casebook play. I am researching more in to it....you've got me thinking...LOL

REPLY: Here's how I would reword NF 6-5-4 if it were up to me (it isn't!!). Mind you, it reflects how I believe the rule is to be interpreted, so some might disagree with the wording for that reason.

6-5-4:
"<b>ART... 4</b> The captain may choose to free kick or snap anywhere between the inbounds lines on the yard line through the spot of the catch when a fair catch is made or through the spot of interference, when a fair catch is awarded. These choices remain if:
(a) a dead ball foul occurs prior to the down
(b) the penalty for a foul (other than non-player or unsportsmanlike) that occurs during the down is accepted and the foul does not include the loss of the right to replay the down
(c) an inadvertent whistle occurs during the down and the down is replayed."

Bob,
phrasing it like that makes much more sense and is clear cut to the topics we have been talking about! So, I would agree with your wording!

FAX it to Indy. They are meeting as we speak.

BTY; I cave! Actually I was enlightened by another, like my crew chief. My head is no longer shaped like a pig!

LOL....

That is a change I would support. The rule as written is too vague and there are not enough case plays to fully illustrate the NF’s intent. You have to quote two other rules and several definitions to even come to a conclusion and then some one will quote two other rules and accepted interpretations to come to another conclusion. With your verbiage, I can at very least understand the intentions by reading the rule!

I stated earlier that in my opinion A should forfeit its option if they commit any foul. This option is used so infrequently that I also hate to eliminate the possibility of it happening occasionally and this is a good compromise. As you said in 27 years you have never seen it occur. I have worked 34 years and have only seen it once in a game I was working and there was no foul involved in that one.

You stated: “if it were up to me (it isn't!!)”. You are correct, the chance of an individual changing a rule that has not been looked at or changed in who knows how long, is almost nil. But what if you submit the change in NJ, I submit the change in AL, someone in FL, GA, MI, OH, ….

I do believe there is power in numbers, especially when it comes from all over the country. I will submit the change through AL. Let’s see where it goes!

I also think there should be more case plays to better illustrate the NF intensions.


[Edited by dumbref on Jan 21st, 2006 at 01:08 PM]