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.

[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

[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!

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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!

We had a long discussion about this Friday. I know what most states want in this situation, but do you think anyone has really explained the ramifications?

OK, we have a 15-yard face mask against B on a TD scoring play. A is going to kick for the try, enforcing the 15 yard face mask on the kickoff.

What's to stop B from taking a free shot at the center, kicker, or holder or committing any other live ball penalty?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

We had a long discussion about this Friday. I know what most states want in this situation, but do you think anyone has really explained the ramifications?

OK, we have a 15-yard face mask against B on a TD scoring play. A is going to kick for the try, enforcing the 15 yard face mask on the kickoff.

What's to stop B from taking a free shot at the center, kicker, or holder or committing any other live ball penalty?

Actually this is not what the NF has put out so far. Now your state might take a different stance or interpretation but they do not get to carry over several fouls to a kickoff. The rule might change next year, but once there is the scoring team accepts an option, they cannot take two options to the kick off. So what BJ says applies across the board and in the rulebook at this point.

So B gets a free shot. Not sure I like that, but that is the way it is right now.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

We had a long discussion about this Friday. I know what most states want in this situation, but do you think anyone has really explained the ramifications?

OK, we have a 15-yard face mask against B on a TD scoring play. A is going to kick for the try, enforcing the 15 yard face mask on the kickoff.

What's to stop B from taking a free shot at the center, kicker, or holder or committing any other live ball penalty?

Exactly. I expect the case play to be changed next year.

[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!!