I screwed this one up...(I think)
 

2nd & 10 for A on B's 40-yard line. A gains 8 yards on a running play and is tackled in bounds. The LJ calls DB unsportsmanlike conduct on both A&B, with B being first. I was R and we marked off both penalties and played 3rd & 2 at B's 32.

When I got home I tried to find out if that was correct or not, and I think that A should have been awarded a new series by virtue of B's unsportsmanlike conduct penalty advancing the ball beyond the line to gain. So I think we should have played 1st and 10 for A on the 32 rather than 3rd & 2 for A on the 32.

5-1-2(a) says: After a first, second or third down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down and any dead ball foul by B.

Any thoughts?

Unsportsmanlike fouls committed by both teams on the same down do not constitute offsetting fouls. Both are walked off and the resulting down would be 3rd and two for A at B's 32. The reason is that dead ball fouls do not offset the opponent's foul. While this particular play makes it seem silly to end up back at the same spot if there was a case where one team was within the half the distance to goal the mark off would not result in the ball being at the same spot as where the foul was committed. Also, the down and distance is not determined until all of the fouls have been administered. Therefore, A never obtained the line to gain under the administration of the penalty.

Actually, they did.

He said that the USC on B occurred first. So you'd mark off the 15 yards on B which moves us to the 17 yard line, giving A a first down. THEN you'd enforce the foul on A, which moves them back to the 32 yard-line.

1st & 10 from 32 yard line.

Crappy rule? Yes.
The rule? Unfortunately.

This is why you should walk off both penalties. You should walk off the penalty for B's foul, THEN signal first down at that point, THEN walk off the penalty for A's foul, and finally, set the chains.

You are correct, Todd. I got my synapses crossed up.

True ljudge, IF the foul by B is 1st and WILL result in a first down for A. If the first foul was by B, or cuz it is more than 15 yards to the LTG, there is no reason to step both off if you will end up in the same spot and have the same down.

Another time you must walk them off is if either of them will be a 1/2 distance walkoff cuz you will not end up in the same spot after the walkoffs.

When the penalties are close enough to being simultaneous so that nobody could possibly argue otherwise, I always enforce them in the order that doesn't benefit one of the teams. If enforcing B's first gives A a first down, I'll enforce A's first. If enforcing one gives us the "half-the-distance" followed by 15, I'll enforce the other one first.

Don't get me wrong, if I know one foul is clearly after the other, we'll do it by the book. Every time.

Just curious ... A's ball on their own 20, 3rd and 10 after the play is over. Nearly simultaneous 15-yarders on A and B... under the above philosophy, which do you walk first? Either way gives one team an advantage.

I'd think that you would walk off against A first, give them 5 yards, but not a first down. JMO. Path of least resistance.

If you can't be sure which came first then the penalties offset. Don't give one team an advantage by guessing.

Canadian Ruling
 

The yardage for these two dead ball fouls offset. Also, the AFD for B's foul is nullified because A also committed a USC foul.

This whole concept of simultaneous fouls has been very intriguing to me. Have any of the other white hats here found a want for officials to report fouls as simultaneous? Although it is true that there are some fouls that happen simultaneously...but too often I find --particularly wings--unable, or unwanting to determine what happened first. Something happened first, didn't it. And, how do other WHs sort that out...short of asking "what were you looking at and what was your primary key?" Thoughts?

A lot of fights actually do start simultainiously. One player bumps another, they start jawing and then the shoving starts.

If it affects the yardage, the most appropriate way to handle it is to say the fouls were simultainious. It's not that the wings are reluctant to say which foul came first, it's just that they know both players are equally quilty. To say A got his shove in 1/2 second before B and therefore, because on the location on the field, one team gets a longer walk off would be unfair.

Why are you telling ME? I was questioning Rich's policy on this issue, as mentioned above.

To me, simultaneousness is a rare thing, usually it's an easy case of USC and a retaliatory USC. Since MOST of the time, the proper ordering of the walkoffs penalizes the retaliator more than the initiator (when it's not a wash), I have no problem (moral or actual) walking it off the way the rules say to - first foul first.