NAFOA POTD for Dec 10, 2007

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by breynolds

Actually this is word-for-word from the case book, 10.2.2 C. According to the case book, the ruling is that once B declines A's foul there are no more choices. The penalty for B's foul is enforced and it is B's ball at the 25 yard line for an untimed down.

With that said, i don't think this ruling agrees with 10-2-2 which reads that the team not last in possession (team A here) 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).

I notice that the last part of that rule was changed but was listed under "editorial and other changes" so no explanation was given. To me, that says A is granted their options after B has made their decision. I think some clarificiation from NFHS would be nice here. Does anyone else think that they created another situation where the rule book and case book disagree?

I think what they are trying to clarify is that B must be given a choice of accepting or declining A's foul. I agree with Warren that if B declines then we have an untimed down as you must ("then all fouls...are administered...) enforce B's foul and play an untimed down.

[waltjp]

FED 10-2-2 was revised for 2007. A portion of the rule addressing post scrimmage kick fouls was removed and added as 10-2-3 for 2007. Articles 10-2-3 through 10-2-6 were renumbered as 10-2-4 through 10-2-6 for 2007.

10-2-2 (2006)

If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and the play does not have a 2-16-2g (post-scrimmage kick) foul, the team last gaining possession may retain the ball, provided its foul is not prior to the final change of possession and it declined the penalty for its opponent’s foul, other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul. In this case, the team not last in possession has no penalty options. If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of possession and all R fouls are post-scrimmage kick fouls (2-16-2g), then R may retain the ball, provided R declines the penalty for K’s fouls(s), other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul. In this case, the team that was not last in possession has no penalty options and the foul against R will be enforced.

The portion in RED is now 10-2-3 for 2007

10-2-2 (2007)

If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and the play does not have a post-scrimmage kick foul, the team last gaining possession may retain the ball, provided its foul is not prior to the final change of possession and it declined the penalty for its opponent’s foul(s) prior to the change of possession, other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul. In this case, 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 in BLUE was revised or added for 2007.

As written in 2006, A had no option once B declined the foul on A. The rule for 2007 clarifies that statement by adding “until the team last in possession has made its penalty decision.”

What it means is you give B (or whatever team is last to possess the ball) the option to keep the ball by declining the penalty on A. If B decides to decline the penalty and keeps the ball you then give A their options.

[breynolds]

If that is the case, then case book 10.2.2 C does NOT agree with 10-2-2 as written in 2007 and needs to be revised.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by waltjp

FED 10-2-2 was revised for 2007. A portion of the rule addressing post scrimmage kick fouls was removed and added as 10-2-3 for 2007. Articles 10-2-3 through 10-2-6 were renumbered as 10-2-4 through 10-2-6 for 2007.

10-2-2 (2006)

If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and the play does not have a 2-16-2g (post-scrimmage kick) foul, the team last gaining possession may retain the ball, provided its foul is not prior to the final change of possession and it declined the penalty for its opponent’s foul, other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul. In this case, the team not last in possession has no penalty options. If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of possession and all R fouls are post-scrimmage kick fouls (2-16-2g), then R may retain the ball, provided R declines the penalty for K’s fouls(s), other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul. In this case, the team that was not last in possession has no penalty options and the foul against R will be enforced.

The portion in RED is now 10-2-3 for 2007

10-2-2 (2007)

If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and the play does not have a post-scrimmage kick foul, the team last gaining possession may retain the ball, provided its foul is not prior to the final change of possession and it declined the penalty for its opponent’s foul(s) prior to the change of possession, other than a nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul. In this case, 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 in BLUE was revised or added for 2007.

As written in 2006, A had no option once B declined the foul on A. The rule for 2007 clarifies that statement by adding “until the team last in possession has made its penalty decision.”

What it means is you give B (or whatever team is last to possess the ball) the option to keep the ball by declining the penalty on A. If B decides to decline the penalty and keeps the ball you then give A their options.

Walt: Are you saying that A can decline B's penalty after B chooses to decline A's penalty? That's the way I read what you said. I don' think that was the intention of that change. It says " then all fouls and options are administered." I take that to mean that you must still administer the post possession foul on B plus any other fouls, ie, dead ball or USC fouls.

[waltjp]

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.

[kdf5]

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.

[ljudge]

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.

[waltjp]

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.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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.