45 seconds left in the game and A is leading by 1 point. 2nd & 3 from B's 40, A32 dives up the middle and is facemasked, but continues on for a touchdown. With 38 seconds left, A captain decides that it would be best to take the penalty and run the clock out instead of the TD and kick off (A had 2 failed 2 point conversions and their kick off team gave up 2 touchdowns already to the state's best returner).

A has the right to accept this penalty this year, but where do you assess the penalty from?

Face masks are enforced from the end of the run, which in this case is the end zone. The PAT or 2 pt conversion will be tried from the 1.5 yard line. Regardless of whether they decline the penalty or not, they still would have to kick off.

In this case, the penalty isn't automatically nullified as before but I don't believe there's any way that A can accept it and nullify the score.

Why the 1.5 yd line? The foul occured on the field of play, so it is a live ball foul. It is not enforced from the succeeding spot (3 yd ln).

There's no way this score can be nullified. The FED change is a mistake which only adds to the confusion - in my opinion.

A scores!
 

A can not decline the score and accept the penalty. This is one of those quircks. Penalty declined, A scores!

::better stop that return man::

zeb

The score can be nullified a team can accept the penalty and get the ball back to run another play or two to try and run the clock out. It is clear from NFHS interpretations that a team can accept a penalty and decline the yardage. see casebook page 76 casebook play 10.1.1B "The distance penalty for any foul may be declined. However loss of down or automatic first down provisions cannot be declined"

All they did was take the mandatory declination out of the book. If they accept the penalty in this case they would have to decline the distance penalty. My take is just as the casebook play go back to the original LOS and redo the down.

A do-over???? By what rationale? This I gotta hear ...! (Are you going to put the time back on the clock, too?)

I am not saying it is a do over but a replay of the down ehich is aprt of the penalty Based on the casebook play mentioned above (although the play was on a try and no run) The kicker was more comfortable kicking from previous LOS so that's where the ball was placed for a re-try. (yes that is in line with the basic enforcement rule than going back to the line of scrimmage since it was not a run)

However, it seems to me the intent of removing the automatic declination rule was clear the rules committee did not want the defense to be automatically profit from a foul. The rule didnt state it was only when a team was down by 9 and they'd rather have the safety and the ball, it was that the team has the right to decline the penalty. When a team accepts a penalty there is always down and distance. So by telling a team that there is no enforcement spot and they must accept the TD, you are taking away their right to run another down. as it states in the casebook only the loss or automatic downs cannot be refused. Rule 10-5-5 also states that "The score is nullified if the penalty is accepted for a foul, other than non-player or unsportsmanlike, by A which occurs during a down resulting in a successful try, field goal, ot touchdown"

The comments on the rules state that although rare there are situations when "it would NOT BE IN THE BEST INTEREST to have the foul automatically declined." IF the team beleives that it is their best interest to accept the penalty, We cannot force them to take a TD because we have no enforcement spot, that would clearly violate what the team's best interest as they understand it and what I perceive as the intent of the rule. Now do I think a team is stupid for not taking the touchdown? YEP, but I am not the one who makes the best interest of the team decision. The team by refusing the penalty ia allowed by rule to refuse the touchdown, refuse the distance, get a replay of the down, so now the only thing left is where do we put the ball?
In this circumstance with only 38 seconds left to go in the game, there would have had to be a better way for Team A to run out the clock... but let;s take somehting else...

Team A is up by 1 and have been very poor at PAT's etc and they have 1:40 or so left in the game and they want to run out the clock. They now have a third and long and they have to pass. During the completed pass that scores a TD, the passer gets roughed. Clock now stops at 1:20 and Team B has no time outs. Team A believes that it is their best interest to accept the penalty, get a new series of downs, and retain the ball, Are we going to tell a coach sorry you cant do that because end of the run was in goal-line so you still have to take a TD and give up the ball? To me that kind of ruling is not in line with the intent of the rules. The only commom sense place to place the ball is the line of scrimmage like we would in a loose ball play.
I dunno but I would hate to be the one to try and explain to a team why they lost a game because they declined a penalty but still had to take a TD and give the ball to the other team who scored and won.

I think I have a better chance of winning that PowerBall drawing than seing that 9 point situation in my lifetime...

Sorry Kelvin, but the change in the rules does not mean that A will always be able to accept the penalty. For this to happen, the rules would have to state where the ball would be placed in such an event. You're "making it up" when you say you'll put it back at the previous spot. No rule allows you to do this. To further illustrate, you're misapplying rule 10-5-5. In 10-5-5, the foul is committed by A, not B. Re-read it.

You can't just ignore all of the other rules just because the penalty is no longer automatically declined. With the present rules, there's no way to mark off this penalty from the end of the run. In the examples that have been corrected in the case book, there is a way to accept the penalty and a way to enforce it. But in this situation, we are simply following the rules.

It is not possible to enforce this penalty. Therefore, it is declined.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 25th, 2001 at 10:32 AM]

Kelvin, you are misapplying this rule. Note that it is a foul by *A* that causes the score to be nullified, not a foul by B.

You are right, there is a better way to manage the clock. The runner could go down (e.g. "take a knee") in the field of play ... but they chose to score instead.

Bad example, Kelvin. The penalty for roughing the passer when the down ends beyond the line of scrimmage with no change of possession is the end of the run ... still a touchdown in your example.

This is third-world stuff. It probably will not happen, and if it does, it is not likely that an excited high-school captain will not want to keep his points. If you wish to talk fair play and common sense, how about the 1998 rules change that eliminates A's right to decline a foul by B when there is a double foul and a change of possession?! That change not only violates the "Football Fundamentals #41" but also makes it an advantage for Team B to foul on the last timed down of a game if they are behind in the score. They have nothing to lose, and possibly a win to gain.

The original concept of rule 10-5-4 when it first appeared years ago was that a team could do no better in a given play than to score six points, or two on a try. Giving the team another opportunity to do the same thing (score) was frivolous and could lead to no greater gain than a score. Scoring points is the object of the game, after all. I believe this rule change is ill-conceived and will only lead to confusion such as yours. But it doesn't alter the results in this case ... you can't make it do-over.

I agree with you that there in no end of the run in any of these plays. I also think that NF never figured this one out. But here is my predicament. In the casebook of course it was on a loose ball play that did not get any where they went back with out the assessing the yardage and redid the down.

I also agree that if there had been a run the penalty is assessed from the end of the run. However the contradiction lies that in a loose ball play it is easy for a team to decline the distance if they thought it was in their best interest. If the team hadnt scored and where the penalty is assesed from end of the run, the ball would still be on the field someplace, or loose ball from the previous spot but they would have the ball. In the case of a roughing or PI they would have four new downs to chew up the clock.

I cant find any justification in the rule book to force them to take a touchdown because that still in tantamount to the automatic declination. I obviously cant find anything that says take it back to previous spot.

I just hope this play never happens or if it does NFHS figures it out and gets an official interpretation out there because with out one no matter what we do were between a rock and a hard place. Because any way we look at it with philosophy intent and wording, no matter decision we make we arent backed up by any rule or interpretation. It's typical of NF changing a rule to fix one thing and create something worse.

I can just see it now.... it's either the all but one, except for one enforcement spot or it's the automatic touchdown after the no automatic declination rule. Go figure I though rule changes were supposed to make the game easier. Gees what was I thinking????

I think you're making this thing way to complicated Kelvin. The decision to force A to accept the TD is backed by rule. The rule is that this penalty would have to be enforced from the end of the run. Since it can't be enforced, there is no other option.

You're reading to much into the rule change. The rule change says, "Automatic declination of <B>certain</b> fouls committed by the opponents of the scoring team have been eliminated." Again, <b>certain</b> fouls, not all fouls. That tells us that there will be some fouls that can't be accepted and the TD refused. Otherwise, the explanation would read "Automatic declination of <B>all</b> fouls committed by the opponents of the scoring team have been eliminated.

It just isn't so.

kelvin- I believe that you are confusing the enforcement yardage with the yardage gained. Under no circumstance would you ever give the offense the option of returning to the original LOS to play a new down. The touchdown was earned, not the result of a penalty. Like it or not they will have to keep the six points. As for the enforcement, I am only guessing. I believe that if the penalty is declined you have a touchdown (no suprise there) If the penalty is accepted, there will be no enforcement, as this was a live ball penalty, you can not move the enforcement to the try.

It is fundamental, that is, Fundamental 47 -- No penalty directly results in a safety, but if a distance penalty is enforced from behind the offender's goal line toward his end line, it is a safety.

A has the choice of declining the penalty, taking the touchdown for six points, plus, the point after, then kicking off to B.

Or, A can accept the penalty, taking the safety for two points and having B free kick giving A possible possession.