NFHS Fouls on Scoring Play

[FredFan7]

There are new NFHS rules how to enforce fouls on a scoring play this year.

3rd and 5 for A at the 50 yard line. A22 runs for a TD. At the 5 yard line B31 commits a 15 yard facemask foul.

During the try for point, B is guilty of roughing the kicker.

Walk me through A's penalty options with this year's new NFHS rules, please.

[MJT]

By definition, a multiple foul is "two or more LB fouls (other that USC) committed by the same team at such a time that the offended team is permitted a choice of penalties." I know the fouls did not occur on the same down, but it is still a situation in which they we have "a choice of penalties."

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by FredFan7

There are new NFHS rules how to enforce fouls on a scoring play this year.

3rd and 5 for A at the 50 yard line. A22 runs for a TD. At the 5 yard line B31 commits a 15 yard facemask foul.

During the try for point, B is guilty of roughing the kicker.

Walk me through A's penalty options with this year's new NFHS rules, please.

CANADIAN RULING:

Certain fouls in Canada fall under the category as Unnecessary Roughness, and have a myriad of enforcement spots - basically whereever the non-offending team wants. The facemask foul (we only have one) is one of these cases. In addition, roughing the kicker is as well. (The less severe foul is not: contacting the kicker.)

The facemask foul can be applied on the convert or on the kick-off. If no kick-off would ensue, one can be invoked (ie. end of a half). The roughing the kicker can be applied on the convert or (ensuing or invoked) kick-off.

Walk-through of options:

1. A chooses the facemask on the convert
   • convert from 2.5 (½ from the 5) and KO from A45 as usual
2. A chooses the facemask on the kick-off
   • convert from the 5, KO from the B50

With the introduction of the roughing the kicker foul, the facemask foul can be changed to be applied on the convert or to be applied on the KO.

There are four options: (1) both on the convert, (2) both on the KO, (3) facemask on the convert, roughing on the KO, (4) facemask on the KO, roughing on the convert.

(3) and (4) result in the same yardage adjustments: ½ the distance on the convert and 15 on the KO, so the Referee should not give both options as I typed, but rather simplify the explanation mentioning only the yardage adjustments.

New options:

1. A chooses the facemask on the convert, and roughing on the convert
   • convert from 1.25 (½ from the 5 = 2.5, ½ from the 2.5) and KO from A45 as usual
2. A chooses the facemask on the kick-off, and roughing on the KO
   • convert from the 5, KO from the B35
   • this KO location is quite close to B's EZ. The crew should be aware that a rouge being scored is very possible.
3. A chooses the facemask on the convert, roughing on the KO
   • convert from the 2.5 (½ from the 5), KO from the B50
4. A chooses the facemask on the KO, roughing on the convert
   • convert from the 2.5 (½ from the 5), KO from the B50

These choices exists if A is either successful or unsuccessful during the initial convert attempt (the one in which the roughing call was made). Incidentally, the roughing the kicker call would have been made by HL or LJ - whomever can "see the holder's eyes".

Edit: spelling

[ljudge]

Originally Posted by MJT

By definition, a multiple foul is "two or more LB fouls (other that USC) committed by the same team at such a time that the offended team is permitted a choice of penalties." I know the fouls did not occur on the same down, but it is still a situation in which they we have "a choice of penalties."

Is that what they're going with? If that's the case then B can take a free shot on the try. I mean, heck, he's got nothing more to lose unless the official rules the roughing flagrant.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by ljudge

Is that what they're going with? If that's the case then B can take a free shot on the try. I mean, heck, he's got nothing more to lose unless the official rules the roughing flagrant.

A number of knowledgeable folks on the various boards have said this. I haven't heard anything official yet, though, and my reading of the new rule (from the NFHS website) doesn't suggest that enforcement to me. I think we'll end up enforcing both on the kickoff.

[w_sohl]

Originally Posted by The Roamin' Umpire

... I think we'll end up enforcing both on the kickoff.

I have to agree with you here, I think both get enforced on the kickoff. What if the try in unsuccessful though? Can we have one enforced on the try and the other on the kickoff? Can we enforce the penalties out of order in this situation?

[MJT]

Roamin Umpire, I'm not disagreeing that it could end up that we may be able to enforce both, but where do you read anything on the NF website that would indicate that?

I just think that it fits a multiple foul definition and that we will only be able to enforce one. I don't think a player ever thinks about "hey, they can only enforce one foul on the kick off and that was the one we had on the TD, so I am going to get a free shot at someone on this try!"

w_sohl, that is some creative thinking you have posed with your question. IMO, you definitely could enforce one on the replay of the try and the other on the KO, but I doubt you could switch the order. My bet is that if you decided to take the foul that occurred on the TD on the KO, you could not decide after a missed PAT in which there is a foul to take the 1st foul on the try, and the one that occurred on the try on the KO, but you never know. Obviously when you may want to do that would be if the foul on the TD was a 5 yarder and the foul on the try was a 10 or 15 yarder. I wonder if they have considered these options to be included in the case book.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: All I can say is that if the Fed ultimately decides not to enforce both penalties on the kickoff, they will be encouraging exactly what this rule was meant to prevent. Like ljudge said, the foul on the try--short of flagrant--will become a freebie. I understand that the Rules Committee left their meeting undecided as to how to deal with this. That some would point to 10-2-3 as justification is really disingenuous since we know that rule is referring to multiple fouls (look at the title of 10-2), which by definition must occur during the same down.

Let's take it to the extreme. Since their use of 10-2-3 is predicated upon the fact that somehow these fouls don't specifically need to occur during the same down for the rule to apply, why not use it to say that once a team has been penalized for a live ball foul, they can't be penalized for another--ever again in the game. Only slightly more ludicrous than their use.

[Middleman]

Originally Posted by FredFan7

There are new NFHS rules how to enforce fouls on a scoring play this year.

3rd and 5 for A at the 50 yard line. A22 runs for a TD. At the 5 yard line B31 commits a 15 yard facemask foul.

During the try for point, B is guilty of roughing the kicker.

Walk me through A's penalty options with this year's new NFHS rules, please.

By the new rule, the scoring team may choose to have the penalty enforced on the try or on the free kick. Having chosen to enforce the penalty on the ensuing free kick, the try will be from the three yard line and the free kick will be made from R's 45.

By rule, a foul by B on a successful try may be enforced from "the succeeding spot." Therefore unless A chooses to replay the try, the penalty committed by B during the try will be enforced from R's 45 yard line, which is the "succeeding spot" as determined by enforcement of B's foul during the touchdown run.

Don't make this tougher than it is.

[Forksref]

This sounds like one of those rules that comes in and then has to be clarified by an update next year. Hopefully, there can be a clarification prior to this season.

[Theisey]

New casebook play 10.5.3 Situation B will give provide you with NFHS guidence.
Team-A has to decide which one will be enforced on the free-kick.

[Middleman]

Originally Posted by Theisey

New casebook play 10.5.3 Situation B will give provide you with NFHS guidence.
Team-A has to decide which one will be enforced on the free-kick.

Is that a new new casebook play 10.5.3 Situation B? Casebook play 10.5.3 Situation B was "new" last year.

And if it is as you say, the FED has taken a step backwards, in my opinion.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by Middleman

Is that a new new casebook play 10.5.3 Situation B? Casebook play 10.5.3 Situation B was "new" last year.

And if it is as you say, the FED has taken a step backwards, in my opinion.

The "*" by the play means it's new or revised. My old books are being used at the moment by new cadet officials, so I have no way to compare what was revised in this case play. If you say it was new last year, then we have to assume they changed it for this year. Probably to reflect the enforcement of a B-foul on a TD run by A on the succeeding kickoff if desired by team-A.

[JugglingReferee]

I will admit that I'm happy that the Canadian ruleset doesn't have the enforcement challenges that are being presented in this thread.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by MJT

Roamin Umpire, I'm not disagreeing that it could end up that we may be able to enforce both, but where do you read anything on the NF website that would indicate that?

Well, the new rules are listed at http://www.nfhs.org/web/2007/04/2007_football_rules_changes.aspx

Obviously, this isn't the exact text that's listed in the rulebook. But there's nothing in what they do say that suggests an enforcement on the play we're talking about, one way or the other...

I just think that it fits a multiple foul definition and that we will only be able to enforce one. I don't think a player ever thinks about "hey, they can only enforce one foul on the kick off and that was the one we had on the TD, so I am going to get a free shot at someone on this try!"

... however, my reasoning was basically along the same lines as Bob's. Neither 2-16-2d nor 10-2-3 specifically state that the fouls have to occur during the same down. But if you take the first sentence of 10-2-3 very literally, then once a team has had one penalty enforced for a LBF, they may not have any others enforced, ever. This, of course, is silly. There's no official interpretation because it's been obvious to everyone and there's never been a carry-over option for penalties where we've needed it before. Until we get one, I'm going with what makes the most sense to me: enforce both.

I agree that no player goes into a situation thinking that he gets a free shot... until he sees it happen to his team earlier in the game. Then things might get ugly really fast.

Originally Posted by w_sohl

I have to agree with you here, I think both get enforced on the kickoff. What if the try in unsuccessful though? Can we have one enforced on the try and the other on the kickoff? Can we enforce the penalties out of order in this situation?

By 8-3-6, if the try is unsuccessful and B fouls, the try is replayed after enforcement.