I said what I meant, and I meant what I said. The 2006 rule stated, "the team not last in possession has no penalty options." Period. End of sentence.

For 2007 the rule was revised to read, "the team that was not last in possession has no penalty options until the team last in possession has made its penalty decision on the fouls prior to the change of possession, and then all fouls and options are administered to the offended team(s)."

The portion that was added qualifies the original statement by adding the word "until" and then listing a condition. The condition is that the team with possession of the ball at the end of the down has a chance to make their decision on the fouls before the team without the ball makes their decision on the fouls. The rule then goes on to say that all fouls and options are administered to the offended team or teams.

Although poorly worded, the rule is saying that the team with the ball has first choice in whether to accept or decline the foul and then the other teams gets to choose.

Walt: I wasn't getting snippy, I just wanted to make sure I understood you. Can you explain what you meant by this:

"Although poorly worded, the rule is saying that the team with the ball has first choice in whether to accept or decline the foul and then the other teams gets to choose."

I take that to mean that B declines A's penalty to keep the ball then A gets the option to decline B's post possession foul.

Walt - did the NJSIAA go over this in your rules interp meeting back in August? It wasn't mentioned in ours and it's clear what they are saying but somehow I believe they botched something. That's not a rule edit, it's a rule change and it's in line with the NCAA rules.

I asked Bob M. to reply. He's from the North Chapter. I'm interested what his interp is on this one.

I don't necessarily disagree with you but if I had this during the season I would have not given the other team the option. I may be incorrect.

One thing I do know is a new rule that Bob M. and his peers from the north put in they (meaning he fed) botched the ruling in their publication there so it wouldn't surprise me if they did here as well. It'll be interesting what they put in there for 2008.

KD, I didn't get the idea that you were being snippy. Please don't read that into my reply. This situation is a bit unique because of the time element. Under normal circumstances you'd certainly give B the option to decline A's foul and keep the ball. You'd then suggest that A enforce the foul against B. In this situation, when you put A at a disadvantage by forcing them to accept the foul on B.

I believe the rule is poorly worded and would make much more sense if they wrote, "If B accepts the foul on A the result is a double foul and the down will be replayed. B may choose to retain possession of the ball by declining the foul on A. If B chooses to decline the foul on A and retain possession of the ball then A will have the option to enforce or decline the foul on B."

Joe, I don't remember specifically discussing this rule during our pre-season but I'll look through my papers and see what I can find.

In summary, it makes no sense to put A at a disadvantage because B committed a foul on the final play of the game.

Ok, first of all, I have been under the false assumption that B was winning. However, if you let B keep the ball with clean hands but give A the final say then B's really getting the shaft. They are entitled to an untimed down to try and score and A having the last choice would be wrong. The game or period can't end on an accepted penalty and enforcing, without option, B's post possession foul fits that concept. Like someone said, if A doesn't want to be at a disadvantage then don't foul. Had A not fouled, they tackle B short of the EZ, they decline B's foul, game over. Let's just hope the holding flag was a good one.

You're missing the point. B has had a choice in the matter. B chose to decline A's foul and keep the ball. You're looking to punish A twice for the same act. A better argument would be that if B wants the opportunity to snap the ball for a final play then they should not have committed a foul during the return.

Similar situation but vastly different result. A is trailing by 1 point. They snap the ball and run to the 1-yard line. During the run A is guilty of a holding penalty. Would you force B to accept the foul on A and let A have an untimed down?

Additionally, you're still not addressing the meaning of this statement, "the team that was not last in possession has no penalty options until the team last in possession has made its penalty decision on the fouls prior to the change of possession".

Walt, I don't think either of us is following the other real well. I don't want to argue about proposed rule changes or the like, I want to know how you would enforce 10-2-2:

"...and then all fouls and options are administered to the offended team(s)."

When I read this, I still believe it says the same thing (basically) as it did in 2006. Going back to the original play in this topic, if B gets the ball with clean hands but fouls after the change of possession and they decline A's foul (thus keeping the ball for an untimed down) would you give A a choice to accept or decline B's foul?

In a word, yes.

Given the wording of 10-2-2, I agree with Walt.

However, my problem is that this is more than an editorial change and more emphasis should have been given to this in the rule changes.

I hope that NFHS highlights this change in 2008 and addresses the conflict they have created with the case book.

Walt, your "yes" answer to my question, in my opinion, wipes out the clean hands concept and I don't think that was their intention. To me, it's the word "options" that is confusing. I can't think it was their intention to give A the "option" of declining. To me it's about administering other fouls (dead ball, USC) or choosing a multiple foul against B but not declining.

Well we'll just have to agree to disagree on this. I can't see giving B an advantage by forcing A to accept B's foul.

I just searched the NFHS web site. There was a discussion there last summer about 10-2-2 and here's a reply from SRH, who I believe is the rules interpreter from his state. Here's his reply:

"I asked about this new language at the interpretation meeting. It's extremely confusing. There is no new meaning intended. Rather, the purpose of the language is to make it clear that the offended team can choose which penalty to enforce, if more than one foul was committed by the team in final possession.

If the team in final possession gets the ball with clean hands, but then commits more than one foul, they can keep possession by declining the penalty for their opponent's foul, and the opponent then has the choice of which penalty to accept. However, one of the penalties must be enforced (i.e., all can't be declined)..."

REPLY: Sorry I'm late to the party on this one. When I first saw this wording change in the summer, I saw two distinct rule changes being made: (1) it appeared that only Team A (team not in final possession) fouls prior the final change in possession needed to be declined for B to retain ball (Lord knows what they planned on doing with Team A fouls after the final change of possession!!), and (2) apparently they were moving toward a new enforcement where after Team B made its decision, then Team A would be given a choice of how they wanted to dispose of Team B's foul (like the NCAA handles it). And yet, it was listed as an editorial change. This didn't sound kosher to me, so I asked Steve Hall to query Colgate about it. Colgate responded that the new wording is very confusing (ya' think?) and is not meant to imply any new interpretation. According to Mr. Colgate: (a) Team B must decline all Team A fouls to retain the ball, and Team A still has no choices to make--Team B's foul must be enforced. According to the Fed Rules Editor, there was no change in enforcement for 2007. Everything remains the same--except the confounded change in the wording!

REPLY: walt...you and the NCAA agree. That's why their rule does allow Team A to decline Team B's foul. Unfortunately, the Fed doesn't see it that way--despite the way they bollixed up the langauge in 10-2-2 this past season.

Can only mean one thing, Bob...it's time to move up!