Taunting
 

I was at my son's junior high game this past weekend and the officials called taunting on R during a live ball play where R returned the Kick for a touch down. The WH had them replay the Kick from 15yrds back from the previous spot. I looked it up when I got home and feel it should have been a touch down with the penalty enforced on the try or the kick-off, Ks choice. Is this correct?

The officials were wrong. Taunting is a USC foul and they are ALWAYS enforced from the succeeding spot. TD and back them up 15 yards on the try. This CANNOT be carried over to the KO according to new rule 8-2-2.

U52, how did you know it was taunting and some other foul?:confused:

MJT,

Wouldn't you take in to account when the USC happened? if it happen before the TD, just like a player getting his clock cleaned away from the play.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Taunting is Objectionable Conduct, 10 yards from the PNS (Point of Next Scrimmage).

TD counts, and either back the try up 10 yards, or the KO goes back 10 yards.

wheels, USC can NEVER involve contact. All USC fouls (don't even talk about the intentional pass interference guys) are noncontact fouls. Therefor, no matter where it occurs, at the 40 yard line, 10, or in the EZ, it is a USC and can ONLY be enforced on the try.

Thanks MJT

The part in red is something we've been having problems with this year.

Almost every white hat I've worked with has offered enforcement on the kickoff as one of the options for a USC or deadball foul. Unfortunately, as a new guy, my opinion isn't given much weight during these discussions. :(

If it's happening repeatedly, bring a copy of the rule and discuss it with your veteran officials before each game. Sometimes when the new guy brings something up as if he's trying to learn and doesn't understand how something was ruled differently than he expected, the old grizzled veteran ends up learning something when confronted with that foreign rulebook.

Why?
 

Why are live ball USC fouls penalized from the succeeding spot? I have a huge problem with this rule.

Our in state, NC, we are cracking down on USC and specifically, taunting this year. Live ball USC fouls by a player scoring a TD are considered taunting. The player is "ejtected" from the game and suspended for next week's game. Whether it's the "Reggie Bush dive," flipping/dancing/backing into the end zone, holding the ball or "#1" over your head or anything else you can think of that players might do, BANG and you're gone.

Now, I have no problem with this stance. Officials have failed to address it, coaches have failed to address it. The NCHSAA has taken it into their own hands and said enough. That'a great!

But here's my problem with the rule. Why the succeeding spot enforcement? Penalize it as a live ball foul from the spot of the foul, and take the touchdown away. I can guarantee that such a rule change would clean up this type of unsporting behaviour, maybe even faster than ejectd and suspending kids would.

Thoughts?

A's ball on their own 1 yard line. A breaks a big gainer and is going to score easily. While the ball carrier is on the 50, Team B lineman on A's 1 yard line starts talking smack, cussing, whatever - you flag it.

If you have no succeeding spot enforcement, A must decline this penalty and you have nothing to penalize B with (other than a possible ejection).

However, if A does exactly the same thing, you would have to bring it all the way back. Is this equitable? What if B starts cussing a team A player, and A cusses right back, and you flag them both. If you have no option for succeeding spot enforcement, B has just taunted A into losing a 99 yard TD on offsetting penalties.

Your suggestion is hugely problematical.

REPLY: BktBallRef...the simple answer is that a USC foul will have nothing at all to do with determining the result of the play. A can't gain an advantage by taunting, nor can he put B at a disadvantage. That's why the Fed changed the USC enforcement a number of years ago. It used to be as you suggested--a simple live ball foul with all-but-one enforcement. But because of the USC's insignificance in determining the result of the play, they decided to change it...for better or worse. If they changed it back, it would be clear that the only reason for the change would be a punitive reason and not something to do with negating an unfair advantage.

Hmmm...you might want to look that up in your rule book. Like any other live ball foul on such a play, A has the option of taking the penalty on the try.


I realize all of that, Bob. But USC is no longer insignificant in other regards. What's happened since that enforcement was changed? Taunting and unsporting conduct constantly show up in the POE. It's all over TV, so more and more kids are behaving in inappropriate ways.

Wee have penalties for reasons other that it created an unfair advantage. If a team can't score without acting like idiots while they're doing it, there should be punitive action. JMHO.

REPLY: I don't necessarily disagree with you, BktBallRef. And I realized you probably knew that. But I was just mentioning it for some others so that they could have a proper understanding of the philosophy which made USC a succeeding spot enforcement.

Succeeding spot enforcement makes the most sense because the harm caused by the taunt is the same regardless of where or when it took place.

Penalizing from the spot of the foul would have ridiculously different results between incidents of USC occurring in the end zone in which the fouling team scored, and occurrences where after a breakaway TD, someone on his own 30 yard line taunts an opponent. Many occurrences of USC take place well out of bounds, and relating these to a position on the field, although a simple geometry exercise, gets to be silly.

USC also usually occurs over a longer period of time than other fouls do. At what point in time is the incident of USC deemed to have occurred -- when the player bent over, or when he pulled his pants down? Succeeding spot enforcement takes that determination away too.

Robert

But there could easily be forms of increased punitive action other than changing the enforcement spot, which as we've shown here produced inequitable results.

If he governing body thought this was a severe enough problem, they could for instance:

• increase the yardage assessment -- 15 yards isn't set in stone, nor is half the distance to the goal line
• suspend the player for an interval of downs, periods, etc.
• award penalty points to the other team, as in wrestling,
• award a "power play" as in hockey, lacrosse, or rugby, with the suspended player not to be substituted for, or
• award a free scrimmage down, outside the normal system of downs, for the offended team to have "in its pocket" to use any time -- even interrupting the offending team's series.

Or they could apply sanctions other than those administered during the game by game officials.

You may not like any of the above, but at least they'd be more consistent than your choice of distance enforcement spot.

Robert

TOO FUNNY! :D :) :D

So if the runner is on the 10 yard line and A12 takes a cheap shot at B70 at the 30 yard line, it should be penalized as a live ball foul. But if he taunts him under the same situation, it shouldn't be? Why? What's the difference?

I'm talking about a USC foul by one of the 22 players on the field during a live ball.

Understand, I'm looking for ways to stop unsporting behavior that occurs DURING the play. It's no more difficult to penalize than any other ABO foul.

Yours are more consistent? Are you serious?

Robert, everything you suggest is completely foreign to the game. The fact is the rule used to be written the way I'm suggesting. Nothing you've suggested above has ever been used. Since players and coaches continue to ignore sportsmanship, it's time we go back to the old, more punitive rule.

Interesting that you choose these two examples. One act is physical, the other verbal. Up here in Canada, physical is a LB foul, verbal is a DB foul. We have no problems whatsoever in enforcement or everyone's understanding of that enforcement, and the separation between the two.

Nor should there be. We have no trouble understanding the enforcements either.

My point is that if the USC was penalized as a live ball foul, and we started taking touchdowns away, coaches clean it up a lot quicker.

Perhaps it's the area you work in, but around here the USC problem is pretty minor. Maybe because we have always hit them and hit them hard when it does happen. And we have a very punitive ejection policy set by our CIF district so the kids have learned it's not something they want to get near. If the officials let it happen, no matter what the circumstances, then the coaches/players have no real incentive to stop it either. And the great majority of my USC calls have not come on scoring plays. So the main point of your case is moot for me, but I'd bet if the calls are made and enforced correctly when deserved, the players/coaches will get the message without adding anything extra to meet your sensibilities.
The bottom line is, I spend little time worrying about why penalties are enforced the way they are and more time making sure I do enforce them the way the NFHS, the CIF board, and my assoc wants them enforced.

In Kentucky, we have been instructed by the State to enforce the unnecessary roughness penalty that is behind the ball on a "break-away" scoring play as succeeding spot (the try). Not live ball and also not carry-over to the kickoff. The try is from the 18-yard line.

No ... what would happen is that you'd have officials ignoring USC that SHOULD be flagged, because it had no true outcome on the play. You'd have B players end up not being penalized for USC behind the play, because (unless A scores on the play) A would be forced to decline the foul. Both of these are bad outcomes. Leave the current rule alone.

The word is "consistent" -- as in having the same effect every time.

Could be the WH wanted to teach the lad a lesson. Wipe out a TD, or show just how much a 1 1/2 yard penalty can hurt.

My first year: Frosh game. RB broke a long run for a sure score. He stopped at the one yard line to run the width of the field (parallel to the goal line) and taunt the defense. I threw the flag and reported to my WH, a very experienced official.
He thought for a moment, said we really shouldn't allow the TD.
1-10 at the 16. I was :)

Sportsmanship is an NFHS Point Of Emphasis this year. No, I don't think it's just my area.

Nor do I. I have very few worries nor do I have a problem enforcing the rules the way they're written. But I am interested in making the game better.

Any idea why?

Still think that live ball foul has to be declined, Mac? :)

RdFox, Did this come down in writing or was it hear say 3-4 steps removed.

It does not make any sense that Ky. would do this...:confused: :confused:

One thought. It's the rule. Instead of the coaches being upset with the officials why not the bonehead player who committed the foul.

If officials starting penalizing the rule as written coaches would understand it and relaize it is the player's fault for committing the stupid foul.

How nice to know we have WH's out there making up rules to fit their own personal idea of sportsmanship.