Rule Enforcement

[Bob M.]

REPLY: OK Grant...here's the test: Would it be any different for NCAA?

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: OK Grant...here's the test: Would it be any different for NCAA?

Man Bob, you know I am trying to learn the differences! My head hurts trying to sort all this cr*p out!!

Ok, so here is my process to find the answer to your question. (I do this for all plays like this, either NFHS or NCAA).

• Start with definitions. Here there are a few to look at.
  • Type of play: This is a pass play (I will use NCAA terminology- hopefully correctly too). These start at the snap and end when a legal forward pass is complete.
  • Spots: Basic spot on pass plays is the previous spot.
  • Spot of foul: Doesn't really matter since foul by B.
  • Enforcement spot: Since pass play, enforce from basic spot which is previous spot.
• Type of foul:
  • Defensive 5 yard facemask.
  • Live ball, during pass play.
  • No automatic first down.
• Enforcement:
  • If accepted:
    • Distance: 5 yards
    • Where from: Basic spot which is previous spot
    • Down: Replay since LBF
    • Clock status: On ready
  • If declined (wouldn't that be nice and easy?!?):
    • Result of play
    • Clock status: On ready

Now, I REALLY hope I went through that properly. I am sure I messed up the vocab some.

My final answer is no, there wouldn't be any difference. But knowing you the way most of us do, Bob, there probably is some difference.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: OK Grant...here's the test: Would it be any different for NCAA?

I'll take a shot, though NCAA isn't my bailiwick and I don't have a copy of the rulebook here.

I believe I've read here that contact fouls against eligible receivers result in automatic first downs. Now I'm not sure if the foul needs to be beyond the NZ or not. I'm going to guess that it does. So I say no difference in the ruling.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by The Roamin' Umpire

I'll take a shot, though NCAA isn't my bailiwick and I don't have a copy of the rulebook here.

I believe I've read here that contact fouls against eligible receivers result in automatic first downs. Now I'm not sure if the foul needs to be beyond the NZ or not. I'm going to guess that it does. So I say no difference in the ruling.

Yes, contact fouls on an eligible receiver is an automatic first down. But in this case, even though he is eligible I would say that since he is in the act of blocking, the automatic first down wouldn't apply.

BTW- here is a link the NCAA rule book. I save a copy on my computers and my jump drive. That way I always have it!http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

Yes, contact fouls on an eligible receiver is an automatic first down. But in this case, even though he is eligible I would say that since he is in the act of blocking, the automatic first down wouldn't apply.

BTW- here is a link the NCAA rule book. I save a copy on my computers and my jump drive. That way I always have it!http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

So because this eligible receiver was blocking at the time of the foul -- although he would possibly have gone out on a delay route, and the passer might've waited for him to get open had the blocker not been tied up for a little extra time with the opponent's hand on the mask -- his team loses the benefit of the AFD?

Robert

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Grant...yes it was the automatic first down question I was really asking. How would you react or think about it if, instead of a fullback, it was a WR blocking in the neutral zone who had his face mask pulled? Would you think any differently?

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Grant...yes it was the automatic first down question I was really asking. How would you react or think about it if, instead of a fullback, it was a WR blocking in the neutral zone who had his face mask pulled? Would you think any differently?

Ok, so it doesn't matter if he is running a route or anything like that, if he is eligible at the snap and there is a foul committed against him, it is an automatic FD? Got it.

[RoyGardner]

There was an NCAA rules interpretation issued last year (pretty sure it was by Mr. Adams) that said that the runner (in this case the QB who still has the ball) cannot simultaneously be considered an eligible receiver and therefore the AFD would not be applied in the case where the QB still in possession of the ball, had a 5-yd mask committed against him, and then he threw a legal forward pass.

The bulletin pretty clearly said that the ball carrier by definition is a runner, and that he cannot simultaneously be an eligible receiver in the context of this rule.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by RoyGardner

There was an NCAA rules interpretation issued last year (pretty sure it was by Mr. Adams) that said that the runner (in this case the QB who still has the ball) cannot simultaneously be considered an eligible receiver and therefore the AFD would not be applied in the case where the QB still in possession of the ball, had a 5-yd mask committed against him, and then he threw a legal forward pass.

The bulletin pretty clearly said that the ball carrier by definition is a runner, and that he cannot simultaneously be an eligible receiver in the context of this rule.

I was going to post the same thing Roy, as I was reading down thru the posts. I remember the same thing.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RoyGardner

There was an NCAA rules interpretation issued last year (pretty sure it was by Mr. Adams) that said that the runner (in this case the QB who still has the ball) cannot simultaneously be considered an eligible receiver and therefore the AFD would not be applied in the case where the QB still in possession of the ball, had a 5-yd mask committed against him, and then he threw a legal forward pass.

The bulletin pretty clearly said that the ball carrier by definition is a runner, and that he cannot simultaneously be an eligible receiver in the context of this rule.

As sec'y of the rules committee, Mr. Adams could be expected to be in on their deliberations. However, I doubt they considered such a case, and I suspect him of "judicial activism" here.

It is legal to throw yourself a forward pass if you're an eligible receiver (or you could get a return pass after giving it to someone else). If the intention of the 5-yards and AFD rule is to prevent the defense from gaining an advantage (as opposed to the personal foul, which is to prevent broken necks), then why should the defense in just this case not get the full penalty for using an illegal tactic to impede the potential receiver?

Robert

[LeRoy]

So with the ball on Team B's 6 yardline and the QB scambles back to the 50 and the tightend comes back to help him and he get's facemasked at the 49 yardline, then the pass is completed to the 48 yard line and the runner is downed there. Are we going back to the 5 yard line for the penatly enforcement? Because the tight end could have went out for a pass?

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by LeRoy

So with the ball on Team B's 6 yardline and the QB scambles back to the 50 and the tightend comes back to help him and he get's facemasked at the 49 yardline, then the pass is completed to the 48 yard line and the runner is downed there. Are we going back to the 5 yard line for the penatly enforcement? Because the tight end could have went out for a pass?

The basic spot on passing plays is the previous spot, so the 5 yard penalty will be enforced 1/2 the distance to the 3 yard line and an automatic first down.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by LeRoy

So with the ball on Team B's 6 yardline and the QB scambles back to the 50 and the tightend comes back to help him and he get's facemasked at the 49 yardline, then the pass is completed to the 48 yard line and the runner is downed there. Are we going back to the 5 yard line for the penatly enforcement? Because the tight end could have went out for a pass?

I guess you're asking a question of game design philosophy. I could ask the related question in the case of no foul, are we going back to the B 6 yard line if an incomplete pass is thrown intended for the TE on the B 48, because the end could have gone downfield?

The NCAA made a decision a long time ago to treat unsuccessful forward pass plays differently from the usual progress of the ball. When the forward pass was first legalized, a forward pass that hit the ground before touching an eligible receiver of the passing team was a live ball that could be recovered and advanced by the opposing team; if it was recovered by the passing team, it was treated as an illegal forward pass and brought back to the spot of the pass. The rules makers decided they wanted to encourage forward passing more, and recognized that a player throwing a forward pass was forfeiting an opportunity to advance the ball from there by running (especially so when the pass had to originate at least 5 yards behind the previous spot), so in compensation for that "loss", they awarded the distance back to the previous spot in case of an incompletion. It was a while before they realized a runner could sometimes benefit from this generosity by deliberately throwing an incomplete forward pass during any play; I don't know how long before intentional grounding was outlawed. Anyway, a different view was taken for "pass plays" than for "running plays", with the idea that most "pass plays" would be so by design, and so would be subject to partly different rules, increasingly so over the years.

It certainly didn't have to be that way, and I'd like to see them go back, but in general that would tend to discourage the passing game compared to what it's become. But you shouldn't complain when rules are adopted that are consistent, and this penalty enforcement seems consistent with the "pass play" philosophy to me.

Robert

[ljudge]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

Yes, contact fouls on an eligible receiver is an automatic first down. But in this case, even though he is eligible I would say that since he is in the act of blocking, the automatic first down wouldn't apply.

That would be incorrect from what I have been reading. It's an auto first down. And, to take it a step further let's change things (only slightly) to say the inadvertent facemask was against the QB. Even though the QB threw the pass he's still technically an eligible receiver, and therefore, A would be awarded a first down in this case as well. See 9-3-4e

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

Yes, contact fouls on an eligible receiver is an automatic first down. But in this case, even though he is eligible I would say that since he is in the act of blocking, the automatic first down wouldn't apply.

BTW- here is a link the NCAA rule book. I save a copy on my computers and my jump drive. That way I always have it!http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/20...ball_rules.pdf

Grant, thanks. Turns out I already had the link, but our connection at work is so slow (I teach in a public high school with, shall we say, limited resources.) that by the time it had finished downloading, my lunch break would have been over.