Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

No LD here; just 15 yards. A 4D/25 @ B-50.

There's a 4th down in Canadian? :)

I think your sentence is missing a subject.

I think you meant to say, "There's a 4th down in Canadian football?"

But yes, you are correct - normally there is not a 4th down up here. If a play needs to be modified for field position because it involves the US 50 yard line, I mention it. I should do the same if a play involves a 4th down. :)

I didn't have to slap my crew for the enforcement. We knew what we were doing. The coaches needed the slapping. Both times, the head coaches of the offending team were on my sideline. (I'm HL by the way) The one that lost the ball on 4th down was asking why it wasn't a replay of 4th down. I explained to him OPI is 15 and a loss of down, and since it was 4th down and they failed to meet the line to gain, they lose the ball. He tried the line about no penalty causes the ball to be lost, and I told him that's true, but this was 4th down, and you failed to gain a first down. He and his assistants were standing there trying to figure out how it can be. I just went on my business as usual.

The one that lost it on the 2-point conversion at first was puzzled as to what we were doing, taking it away from them and enforcing the 15 on the kickoff. I explained to him it's OPI and a loss of down so therefore they couldn't do the try and it has to be enforced on the kickoff since the try can't be redone. At first, he gave me a funny look like my explanation was all over the place and then he realized it. Loss of down, you got the call right. Sorry, lost my head there for a moment. I said, no problem coach. (BTW, this coach is the winningest coach in 8-man ball currently and probably historically in Nebraska and probably the winningest in state history and currently percentage wise-he's a real class act with a team that's always high on my sportsmanship list)

They probably should delete that statement because it's too facile.

What about illegal touch by K of their free kick in the neutral zone? K was last to possess the ball before the touching, and the down may even have ended with a K player in possession of the ball. The penalty causes loss of ball by any simple reading of those words.

Robert

Robert is first touching considered a penalty though?

No, good point, it's a choice without being considered a penalty, and it doesn't offset a foul by the other team. Like incomplete pass.

Probably that statement (i.e. not a particular rules provision, but the "fundamental") was put in because there were times when there were loss-of-ball penalties. The last of those in USAn ball I know of was eliminated in 1970 (give or take a year) by NCAA when fouls during certain loose balls had the loss of ball provision removed from the penalty. Likewise there was a statement about incomplete forward passes not offsetting a foul by the other team because at certain times there were penalties for incomplete (and not necessarily intentionally so) forward passes. (There were a couple of years in the 1940s in NCAA where a 2nd incomplete pass in a series of downs was penalized by loss of down & 10 yards from the previous spot.)

Robert