double foul, pass play
 

A's ball 1st and 10 on A's 40. A snaps the ball with an illegal formation, only 6 on the line. A 12 throws a legal forward pass towards A88, who is eligible. B22 sees that he is beaten miserably and runs towards A88 trying to catch up. The ball is underthrown a little and B22 grabs A88 and pulls him down to the ground prior to the ball arriving. The covering official rules this to be intentional pass interference.

Question is, how do we enforce this? Is it just simply a double foul? Or do we still get to enforce the unsportsmanlike portion of the defensive foul as a deadball foul? I'm thinking that the "intentional" part of this can be enforced as a deadball foul. Someone let me know if this is right or wrong.


Dr.Moore

these are both live ball penalties, replay the down.

An interesting question. The problem is that the only reason we have to think that this should be ruled USC is the signal specified is S27. Is that enough?

In my opinion, it is. My interpretation is that B has committed two fouls on this play: PI and USC. The PI will go with A's IF as a double foul. The USC will be enforced because it is treated as a dead-ball foul. My result is A 1/10 @ B45.

In table 7-5 it's listed as "intentional pass interference" and, although the signal is s27, the foul seems to be pass interference and not USC. This foul is only listed under the pass interference rules and not under the USC (9-4). The illegal formation and the pass interference call(s) should offset.

Hmm, I'm starting to agree with this just being a plain double foul and reply the down.

Bob M. Would love to hear your opinion on this one.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

At the snap, the side guys flag for illegal procedure for having only 6 guys on the line of scrimmage [4-3-2a]. The flag will be waved off if A only had 11 (or less) on the field (the # of line players may be reduced by an equal # of players short on the playing field) [4-3-2b].

There is no intentional pass interference in Canada. We could have two fouls on the play: DPI and UR. I'll cover both possibilities: (a) DPI only, and (b) DPI and UR. DPI is 6-4-9b, UR is 7-3. We need to know if the DPI was more than 15 yards downfield. I'll cover both situations: (i) > 15y, and (ii) <= 15 yards.

This is a dual foul, because B has no strategic reason to decline the illegal procedure. The first foul is illegal procedure, therefore this is the POA for all fouls [8-6-3]. The 5 yards for illegal procedure and (i) 15 yards or (ii) 10 yards for DPI are balanced here. We're either going up (i) 10 or (ii) 5 yards in A's favour. There is no automatic first down as a result of the DPI [8-6-2f].

In (a) we're done, and (b) we apply the UR. UR is 15 yards and an AFD in this case.

End result:

• (a)
  • (i) Team A 1D/10 @ A-50
  • (ii) Team A 1D/5 @ A-45
• (b)
  • (i) Team A 1D/10 @ B-45
  • (ii) Team A 1D/10 @ B-50

NCAA: offset.

I believe the only reason the intentional PI is a signal 27 is so it will be understood why you are marking off 30 yards instead of 15. Remember, USC fouls are always noncontact fouls and this does involve contact. These fouls will offset.

BTW, I think this has been discussed before and I don't think anyone has ever called an intentional PI and had the 30 yard penalty.

Think about the sorts of things that USC normally are. The only fouls called USC I can think of that affect play directly are those where a player of B deliberately prevents the ball from being put in play. All the rest are penalized not to rectify an unfair advantage but just to make the players' behavior nicer, so to speak.

Here you have 2 teams in a live ball situation each taking some unfair advantage -- one probably unintentionally, the other intentionally. Sure, B22 interferes with play in a way that you're flagging as pass inteference but in an extreme enough case could even be considered an unfair act (preventing a score) with an equitable penalty, possibly a TD awarded. But so what? A had already fouled by putting the ball in play from an illegal formation, and should not be allowed to benefit from the outcome of that play. So the logic of replaying the down is inescapable IMO, even if the rules weren't so clear about it.

The exception would be situations involving the safety of the players, and IIRC NCAA does make such an exception for personal fouls in a dual foul situation. If B22 had interfered with A88 by pulling his face mask, that foul would be enforceable.

Robert

a question on that situation...

since illegal formation is a flag play penalized with 5 yards and pass interference (in college) and personal foul a 15 yard flag I wonder...

is there, in NCAA, that NFL rule that states that any 15 vs 5 yards situation the 5 yard penalty is suposed to be disregarded and the 15 yard applied?

If there is, does that mean you need to forgive the offense of being formed illegaly and benefit them with a 15 yards pass interference on a play they shouldn't have?

REPLY: dvasques...no such rule in NCAA, or Federation for that matter. Only NFL distinguishes fouls like that.

Then I was wrong, confused NCAA with NFL.

In the NFL an ilegal formation and a pass interference would offset because none is a 15 yards penalty

Good points, those. But table 7-5 also says that the additional 15 yards are penalized from the succeeding spot. Granted that this is the only way that the penalty makes any sense, but 10-4-5d says that the basic spot is the succeeding spot for only four types of penalties: USC, dead-ball, nonplayer, or during a touchback. It's clearly none of the last three, so this foul must be USC.

REPLY: I never really thought about this one. It's a really good question apart from the fact that almost no one has ever called or even seen intentional PI. But my thoughts are that if you wiped out the PI as part of the double foul, how could you enforce a penalty against the 'intentional' part of it? Seems incongruous to me. But then again so do a lot of interpretations related to the new rules.;)