What to call

[Theisey]

I sense the issue LIRef is trying to get at is this, would you call the illegal block a live ball or call it a dead ball foul.
The basic premise is one way gives the team a TD and the other does not.

One has to assume that the official covering the runner may not have been the official flagging the foul. Time to huddle up and come to an agreement as to did the foul occur before or after the score.
Should the flagging official be the same one covering the runner, it shouldn't be a too much of a problem making that determination.

The bottom line is to get the result right despite the fact the foul was behind what looks to be a sure score. A totally unnecessary block by the offense player.

[Ed Hickland]

Think the point of the original question was whether a "stupid" illegal block should negate a sure score.

If all things were equal and done entirely by the book, the foul would be penalized from the basic spot, that is, where the foul occurred.

This has been discussed in our Association meeting and consensus was penalize this as a USC, which, is totally wrong because there was contact and it is a personal foul. The reason for the USC it is a method to penalize "correctly" albeit it wrong without taking away the score.

Another method was to simply lie about when the foul occurred and say the score had already occurred when the contact occurred. Dead ball foul, penalize from succeeding spot. But what if the runner was tackled on the one yard line? Only a 1/2 yard penalty?

The real answer is that coaches should teach players not to block illegally.

But, what if, the block was in form legal but thirty yards behind the definite touchdown what is known as "chipping." Same situation as mentioned before applies but now you would be penalizing contact that is legal but unnecessary.

I would love to hear other opinions on whether to penalize both the legal and illegal contact on the long touchdown play.

[ChickenOfNC]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Only a 1/2 yard penalty?

Foul was on A, so it would still be a 15 yarder.

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

But, what if, the block was in form legal but thirty yards behind the definite touchdown what is known as "chipping." Same situation as mentioned before applies but now you would be penalizing contact that is legal but unnecessary.

I would love to hear other opinions on whether to penalize both the legal and illegal contact on the long touchdown play.

The operative word is "unnecessary". This contact is covered in the rules.

Rule 9 Conduct of Players and Others
Section 4 Illegal Personal Contact
Article 3 No player or non-player shall:
g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness.

Notice, the rule does not differentiate between otherwise legal and illegal contact. It states that any unnecessary contact which incites roughness is illegal. Whether you call it or not depends on your philosophy of what is unnecessary. I am very strict on this myself. I do not tolerate cheap shots way behind the play, even if the contact is from the front and above the waist. If the blockee sees the block coming and has time to prepare for the impact, I usually pass on a call as it is not likely to incite roughness.

[HawkeyeCubP]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Think the point of the original question was whether a "stupid" illegal block should negate a sure score.

If all things were equal and done entirely by the book, the foul would be penalized from the basic spot, that is, where the foul occurred.

This has been discussed in our Association meeting and consensus was penalize this as a USC, which, is totally wrong because there was contact and it is a personal foul. The reason for the USC it is a method to penalize "correctly" albeit it wrong without taking away the score.

Another method was to simply lie about when the foul occurred and say the score had already occurred when the contact occurred. Dead ball foul, penalize from succeeding spot. But what if the runner was tackled on the one yard line? Only a 1/2 yard penalty?

The real answer is that coaches should teach players not to block illegally.

But, what if, the block was in form legal but thirty yards behind the definite touchdown what is known as "chipping." Same situation as mentioned before applies but now you would be penalizing contact that is legal but unnecessary.

I would love to hear other opinions on whether to penalize both the legal and illegal contact on the long touchdown play.

Our association had a film session on this type of play this year, and after some lengthy discussion, it was agreed that it should be a personal foul, not USC. Bring it back.

[kentref]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Think the point of the original question was whether a "stupid" illegal block should negate a sure score.

If all things were equal and done entirely by the book, the foul would be penalized from the basic spot, that is, where the foul occurred.

This has been discussed in our Association meeting and consensus was penalize this as a USC, which, is totally wrong because there was contact and it is a personal foul. The reason for the USC it is a method to penalize "correctly" albeit it wrong without taking away the score.

Another method was to simply lie about when the foul occurred and say the score had already occurred when the contact occurred. Dead ball foul, penalize from succeeding spot. But what if the runner was tackled on the one yard line? Only a 1/2 yard penalty?

The real answer is that coaches should teach players not to block illegally.

But, what if, the block was in form legal but thirty yards behind the definite touchdown what is known as "chipping." Same situation as mentioned before applies but now you would be penalizing contact that is legal but unnecessary.

I would love to hear other opinions on whether to penalize both the legal and illegal contact on the long touchdown play.

This is a live ball personal foul. The player made a stupid, unnecessary, but illegal block. It's a safety issue and, perhaps more importantly, by penalizing it correctly as a live ball personal foul it sends the message that that kind of garbage foul won't be tolerated. I've seen situations like this where a player thinks he can get in a cheap, retaliatory shot at an opponent. Penalizing it as a PF helps prevent similar fouls later in the game. Also, if it's flagrant, you toss him.

[mikesears]

If a player is "head hunting" and the ball is live, my philosophy is to bring the ball back and mark off the penalty. If the ball is dead and the foul occurs, treat it as a dead ball foul. The only change I wish the NF would make is to allow a choice of spots for dead ball fouls on a scoring play (try or succeeding kickoff). I don't feel I can go wrong by applying the rules as written and as kentref has offered, it prevents similar things from happening later.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by mikesears

If a player is "head hunting" and the ball is live, my philosophy is to bring the ball back and mark off the penalty. If the ball is dead and the foul occurs, treat it as a dead ball foul. The only change I wish the NF would make is to allow a choice of spots for dead ball fouls on a scoring play (try or succeeding kickoff). I don't feel I can go wrong by applying the rules as written and as kentref has offered, it prevents similar things from happening later.

One of the reasons officials are reluctant to enforce as written is coaches don't like stupid penalties that take scores off the board and for many high school officials enforcement could lead to serious consequences by the coaches.

I agree the rules committee should look at this problem. If the rule is not enforced then it opens the door for further unnecessary action. Enforcement as a USC or a dead ball personal brings ethics into question.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

One of the reasons officials are reluctant to enforce as written is coaches don't like stupid penalties that take scores off the board and for many high school officials enforcement could lead to serious consequences by the coaches.

Sorry if those who have to deal with that sort environment take offense, but if you are adjusting your calls to satisify the mood of a coach, you don't belong on the field.

[BuckeyeRef]

One of the reasons officials are reluctant to enforce as written is coaches don't like stupid penalties that take scores off the board and for many high school officials enforcement could lead to serious consequences by the coaches.

I agree the rules committee should look at this problem. If the rule is not enforced then it opens the door for further unnecessary action. Enforcement as a USC or a dead ball personal brings ethics into question.

I have called this live ball personal foul at least three times a year on lower level games. Every time I have called it and taken the score off the board the coach has asked for an explanation and I have given it to him. Not one of the coaches has disputed the call. On the good side, I haven't had to make this call in a varsity game, so the coaches must be teaching the players something.