Kill the Punter

[PaulJak]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

RTK, yes. PF - no. PF is a live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul.

Help me with the live ball enforced as a dead ball?

If a kid blows up another kid 30 yards behind a live ball, the enforcement spot is the spot of the foul. Its a live ball foul, why would you treat it as a dead ball foul? If you've got a USC during a live ball I can understand the treating it as a dead ball thing, but not a live ball PF.

Paul

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PaulJak

Help me with the live ball enforced as a dead ball?

If a kid blows up another kid 30 yards behind a live ball, the enforcement spot is the spot of the foul. Its a live ball foul, why would you treat it as a dead ball foul? If you've got a USC during a live ball I can understand the treating it as a dead ball thing, but not a live ball PF.

Paul

Sorry, my ruleset is showing. NCAA Rules (the OP didn't say).

[PaulJak]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Sorry, my ruleset is showing. NCAA Rules (the OP didn't say).

Thanks, my head is always thinking Fed first. Good to know there is a difference here.

I've always disliked the fact that something that far away can ruin a great long gain. Its a safety thing, so you've got to get it, but to bring it all the way back or even cancel a score is a severe enforcement.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by PaulJak

Thanks, my head is always thinking Fed first. Good to know there is a difference here.

I've always disliked the fact that something that far away can ruin a great long gain. Its a safety thing, so you've got to get it, but to bring it all the way back or even cancel a score is a severe enforcement.

This is one of the Fed rules that bug me the most. I get the idea that if you have severe enforcement, hopefully that will eliminate the action. But consider these two (and correct me if my understanding of the FED enforcement on these is incorrect).

Team A on it's 2 yard line, breaks one loose and is around the 50. Team B lineman sees this and punches a Team A player. The runner is tackled at the 10.

Situation 1) Nothing else happens - you have a live ball PF on B, and no score on the play. So B gets away with his actions (other than the ejection).

Situation 2) Team A lineman retaliates, punching Team B. You have offsetting live ball fouls, the play comes back to the 2.

Both of these seem problematical to me. Change both punches to just cheap shots, and you don't even get an ejection - and B "gets away" with it.

[PaulJak]

mbcrowder, I couldn't agree more.

Take your 2nd scenario a little further, the retaliation is after the play is dead. So now you've got live ball on B, dead ball on A. A still gets their long gain as this would be 1st and 10 from the B 20 yard line (B's goes half the distance to the 5 and then back 15 for A's dead-ball PF). The timing of the fouls becomes critical, you've gotta know the ball status and the implications of offsetting vs. live-ball dead-ball are huge. A seems to have a huge advantage to waiting until after the play is done to retaliate for the PF.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Team A on it's 2 yard line, breaks one loose and is around the 50. Team B lineman sees this and punches a Team A player. The runner is tackled at the 10.

I'd think that a punch could be construed as fighting, then call an USC (with the ejection), which is enforced as a dead-ball foul. Then it doesn't wipe out team A's run. In the second scenario, both are dead-ball USC (with ejections) and the same enforcement applies.

As for cheap shots, I agree. If they are both live-ball, sucks for A.

[PaulJak]

Originally Posted by Suudy

I'd think that a punch could be construed as fighting, then call an USC (with the ejection), which is enforced as a dead-ball foul. Then it doesn't wipe out team A's run. In the second scenario, both are dead-ball USC (with ejections) and the same enforcement applies.

As for cheap shots, I agree. If they are both live-ball, sucks for A.

Suudy, I don't think you can call USC for fighting. PF's involve contact, USCs are non-contact fouls. You can still have the ejection for fighting but its a PF and not a USC (at least in Fed).

This becomes important because two USCs result in DQ whereas a player can have any number of PFs.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by PaulJak

Suudy, I don't think you can call USC for fighting. PF's involve contact, USCs are non-contact fouls. You can still have the ejection for fighting but its a PF and not a USC (at least in Fed).

Indeed. I had always thought fighting was considered USC. It is swinging at (and missing) that is USC. Landing the blow is a PF (with ejection).

[l3will]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Team A on it's 2 yard line, breaks one loose and is around the 50. Team B lineman sees this and punches a Team A player. The runner is tackled at the 10.

Situation 1) Nothing else happens - you have a live ball PF on B, and no score on the play. So B gets away with his actions (other than the ejection).

Both of these seem problematical to me. Change both punches to just cheap shots, and you don't even get an ejection - and B "gets away" with it.

I think I may be confused by this description... but wouldn't the personal foul on B be penalized from the end of A's run? So after penalty enforcement, first and ten for A at B's 5 yard line.

And even if you call the contact a personal foul, you still can eject the B lineman from the game under the last line of the penalty description in Rule 9-4.... "Disqualification also if any foul is flagrant - (S47)."

This would be true for a "cheap shot" too if you decide that the contact fit
the description of 9-4-3g. " Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness."