I don't understand the new NFHS rule

[kraine27]

We had our local officials association meeting the other night and we were reviewing the new rule changes. We were in a discussion regarding the change in rule 8-2-2 and the decission of the scoring (offended) team to take the penalty enforcement on the kick-off. We then talked about the try and what happens if team B commits a foul on the try and A takes the penalty enforcement of that penalty. My confussion is here, does the acceptance of the foul on the try effect the penalty enforcement on the kick off?

I hope I've asked my question clearly.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The Fed's stance on this is captured in Case Play 10.5.3B. It says that if there is a live ball foul on the TD that the captain wishes to have enforced on the kickoff, and then there is a live ball foul on the successful try that the captain wants enforced on the kickoff, he must choose which one (only one) he will bridge to the kickoff. Note...Georgia, NC, and SC have all gone on-record as deciding to ignore the Fed interpretation and carry both penalties over. My opinion (shared by others) is that this rule will experience an 'transformation and epiphany' before the 2008 season begins.

[kraine27]

So, A scores a touchdown and B commits a foul. A takes the score and wants the penalty enforced on the KO. The try is attempted and is unsuccesful but B commits another foul. A has option to accept the penalty and replay the down or take the result of the play. A replays the down and scores and B commits another foul. A now has a choice of carrying over the penalty from the try and negating the previous touchdown penalty or declining the try penalty.

Is that correct?

[wisref2]

Sounds like you understand it. There is an extensive thread elsewhere on this site.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by kraine27

So, A scores a touchdown and B commits a foul. A takes the score and wants the penalty enforced on the KO. The try is attempted and is unsuccesful but B commits another foul. A has option to accept the penalty and replay the down or take the result of the play. A replays the down and scores and B commits another foul. A now has a choice of carrying over the penalty from the try and negating the previous touchdown penalty or declining the try penalty.

Is that correct?

You are correct!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

Note...Georgia, NC, and SC have all gone on-record as deciding to ignore the Fed interpretation and carry both penalties over. My opinion (shared by others) is that this rule will experience an 'transformation and epiphany' before the 2008 season begins.

I thought that all states had to follow the NF rules to the letter no matter what? I thought the NF Gods would come down with a great vengeance?

You mean states can reject the NF's ridiculous rules without penalty? Nooooooooo!!

Peace

[sloth]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I thought that all states had to follow the NF rules to the letter no matter what? I thought the NF Gods would come down with a great vengeance?

You mean states can reject the NF's ridiculous rules without penalty? Nooooooooo!!

Peace

It must be something in the water down there...those ole boys seem to have trouble following a Federa(tion)l mandate to change the way you do things.

(I can joke about this, having gone to college in SC and living in western NC for a number of years...I absolutley love it down there.)

[Rick KY]

Here is an easy way to understand this scenario.

The scoring team can bank that foul from the scoring down for the free kick, and attempt the try. If there is a foul on the try, they can choose which foul is to be enforced on the free kick.

Be careful not to let dead ball fouls from before the try to carry over to the free kick. Dead ball fouls after the try can be tacked on after the carried over live ball foul.

Mechanics question for white hats...

After the TD is scored and the penalty is sorted out, we are told to give the proper foul signal, then point to the free kick spot to indicate where it will be enforced. Is this how others would do this?

[bigjohn]

Not True in Ohio, we have been told that once you accept a penalty on the TD that is the one enforced on the KO. If there is another LB foul on the try it is disregarded! This comes directly from OHSAA!

[Tom Hinrichs]

That is how I am doing it. Does anyone know of a different mechanic?

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by Rick KY

After the TD is scored and the penalty is sorted out, we are told to give the proper foul signal, then point to the free kick spot to indicate where it will be enforced. Is this how others would do this?

Yup. I would have something like:

"The result of the play is a touchdown." (arms up)
"During the play, there was a face mask foul ... " (signal appropriately)
"... by the defense." (point at the defense)
"The 5-yard penalty will be enforced on the kickoff." (point upfield to the 40)

Before the ensuing kickoff, I would have the HL put the ball on the 40, signal the foul and point at the defense (now receivers), and then pick up the ball and step off the 5 yards and put the ball down again.

[MadCityRef]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I thought that all states had to follow the NF rules to the letter no matter what? I thought the NF Gods would come down with a great vengeance?

You mean states can reject the NF's ridiculous rules without penalty? Nooooooooo!!

Peace

States can have their own interpretations of rules. And create their own.
You forgot the IHSA balk rule change this year?

I'd expect better from a Wolverine. Don't forget: There's plenty of room on the Rutgers bandwagon!!

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

States can have their own interpretations of rules. And create their own.
You forgot the IHSA balk rule change this year?

That is not entirely true. A state cannot create any rules unless they want to be left off the NF Committee consideration all together or their rules making process. A state can take a rule and become more restrictive or give an interpretation that not spelled out clearly by existing rules. The balk rule was not a complete creation. The IHSA came up with an interpretation that was easier to apply consistently and understand. For example in Basketball we used a rule for two years for DQ'd players that only applied to our state. That was a NF experiment that we were allowed to use. Once the experiemental period was over, the rule was dropped.

Originally Posted by MadCityRef

I'd expect better from a Wolverine. Don't forget: There's plenty of room on the Rutgers bandwagon!!

If you are going to attend Michigan games with me, you really need to stop it right now.

BTW

Anyone
But
Carr

Peace

[prosec34]

I watched a varsity high school game last week and thought the officials might've messed up this new rule. A is punting deep in their own territory when the center snaps the ball over the punter's head. In attempting to avoid B scoring a touchdown since the ball is bounching in the end zone, the punter kicks the ball out of the end zone for a safety.

The officials flagged the illegal kicking, but made B decline the penalty for the safety (of course, the penalty inside A's end zone makes for an automatic safety anyway).

I checked the rule book, and the provision for applying penalties on kickoffs only applies for touchdowns and field goals. It wasn't added to safeties. Perhaps it should be, because in this instance, the punter has every incentive to violate the rule and kick the ball.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by prosec34

I watched a varsity high school game last week and thought the officials might've messed up this new rule. A is punting deep in their own territory when the center snaps the ball over the punter's head. In attempting to avoid B scoring a touchdown since the ball is bounching in the end zone, the punter kicks the ball out of the end zone for a safety.

The officials flagged the illegal kicking, but made B decline the penalty for the safety (of course, the penalty inside A's end zone makes for an automatic safety anyway).

I checked the rule book, and the provision for applying penalties on kickoffs only applies for touchdowns and field goals. It wasn't added to safeties. Perhaps it should be, because in this instance, the punter has every incentive to violate the rule and kick the ball.

I always thought it was stupid that this was a rule violation in the first place. It's the smart thing for K to do, actually, taking the safety.