Delay of game

[DrMooreReferee]

A is leading by 5. They have the ball at B's 35 with 4th and 10. The clock is running and A gets flagged for delay of game. There are now 35 seconds left in the 4th quarter. B's captain wants to accept the foul for delay of game for the purposes of the clock NOT starting on the ready. However, he would also like to decline the yardage penalty thinking that 5 yards back would just give K a better chance of downing the punt deep.

Can he do this?

I say he can. Fundamental X-1 says he can.

However, a friend of mine has argued this point. In his opinion, 10-1-1 and
10-1-2 illustrates that there is a difference between live ball fouls and dead ball fouls in a captains ability to decline the yardage penalty.

Again, I disagree. I think the fundamental clearly says that yardage can be declined for ANY foul.

What yall think?

Dr.Moore

[Bob M.]

REPLY: You're correct. Tell your friend he needs to brush up a little. It's not only in the Fundamentals; it's also in 10-1-1: "...The distance penalty for any foul may be declined..." [Emphasis on the word "any" is mine.]

[Robert Goodman]

Regardless, doesn't Fed have a provision similar to NCAA's that, following the administration of a penalty (acceptance or declination), if it appears the team that fouled is trying to consume time, time is to be taken out until the ball is next put in play? So the penalty could be declined and the clock still stopped?

[Warrenkicker]

We sure do have timing provisions in NF. It is the referee's decision whether to start or stop the clock due to a team trying to illegally conserve or consume time, 3-4-6. But either way, an accepted DOG penalty means that the clock will not start until the snap, 3-4-3i. If the DOG penalty is declined then the clock should be wound if it was running before.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

A is leading by 5. They have the ball at B's 35 with 4th and 10. The clock is running and A gets flagged for delay of game. There are now 35 seconds left in the 4th quarter. B's captain wants to accept the foul for delay of game for the purposes of the clock NOT starting on the ready. However, he would also like to decline the yardage penalty thinking that 5 yards back would just give K a better chance of downing the punt deep.

Can he do this?

I say he can. Fundamental X-1 says he can.

However, a friend of mine has argued this point. In his opinion, 10-1-1 and
10-1-2 illustrates that there is a difference between live ball fouls and dead ball fouls in a captains ability to decline the yardage penalty.

Again, I disagree. I think the fundamental clearly says that yardage can be declined for ANY foul.

What yall think?

Dr.Moore

CANADIAN RULING:

Yes, B can do this. The non-offending team can decline the yardage portion of any penalty application.

However, in the Canadian game, a DOG (called a Time Count foul) after the 3MW has been given, and on last down (we only have 3 downs), is a 10 yard foul. On 1D and 2D, it is a LD. Since it's after a penalty application inside the 3MW, the clock starts on the snap. B should not have to decline this foul, since they will benefit from A's worse field position and the clock starting on the snap. In Canada, a missed FG is live and treated as a punt.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

We sure do have timing provisions in NF. It is the referee's decision whether to start or stop the clock due to a team trying to illegally conserve or consume time, 3-4-6.

No, I mean a provision to stop it even if a team is legally trying to consume time, or would clearly benefit by consuming time, and fouls even though unintentionally.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

CANADIAN RULING:

B should not have to decline this foul, since they will benefit from A's worse field position

No, they still might decline it because they may be willing to sacrifice 1 point for field position should A's punt reach the goal line.

Against a kicker who's good at hitting the corner in any code, you should never decline that penalty because it just puts them closer to their target. However, some teams don't have anyone with that accuracy -- they have one kind of punt, and if they try for the corner or to shorten it they might get an outright shank -- and if you know the other team's kicker is like that, then you should take the penalty, provided you aren't bothered by the chance they'll reach the line to gain, and provided that in Canadian football you can afford that 1 point.

Heh -- think they won't go for it, so you don't have to worry about their reaching the line to gain? What if they do punt, and a penalty against you from the previous spot puts them beyond it? So there are lots of reasons to take the penalty, but it's still not an obvious choice.

Robert

[Warrenkicker]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, I mean a provision to stop it even if a team is legally trying to consume time, or would clearly benefit by consuming time, and fouls even though unintentionally.

Robert

Then I would say that you are arguing that fouling, performing an illegal act, is a legal way to consume time. I say that a false start and then an illegal substitution that in the end run off 45 seconds of clock would be considered illegal acts and thus are consuming time illegally. The rule of thumb is that the first act might not be ruled as an intentional act that requires the clock to be started on the snap depending on when and how it happened but the second one should always get caught.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, they still might decline it because they may be willing to sacrifice 1 point for field position should A's punt reach the goal line.

I can buy that. B wants A to kick closer to the GL to cause A to have a higher chance of earning that single point, for the benefit of the 15 extra yards B'll get. If the rouge causes A to now be winning by 5 instead of 4, for example, there is no difference in strategy: B still needs a major to win.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Against a kicker who's good at hitting the corner in any code, you should never decline that penalty because it just puts them closer to their target. However, some teams don't have anyone with that accuracy -- they have one kind of punt, and if they try for the corner or to shorten it they might get an outright shank -- and if you know the other team's kicker is like that, then you should take the penalty, provided you aren't bothered by the chance they'll reach the line to gain, and provided that in Canadian football you can afford that 1 point.

Yes, I agree. B would have to know the stats on A's punter.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What if they do punt, and a penalty against you from the previous spot puts them beyond it? So there are lots of reasons to take the penalty, but it's still not an obvious choice.

This however, is an entirely new situation. If there is a time count foul, there cannot be any Team B penalties applied. (Let's leave OC, UR, NM, and RP out of the mix - which are stupid at any point in the game, and no more or less stupid on this particular play.)

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Without getting into a semantical argument about whether or not the word "attempts" in rule 3-4-6 implies "intent," I will say that down in the 'nut' part of the game, if a team will consume time as a result of a foul and that time is critical, I'd be inclined to give the offended team the benefit of the doubt and leave the clock stopped--even on the first false start or whatever.