NAFOA POTD for Dec 10, 2007

[kdf5]

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?

[waltjp]

In a word, yes.

[breynolds]

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.

[kdf5]

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.

[waltjp]

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.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by waltjp

...I can't see giving B an advantage by forcing A to accept B's foul.

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

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!

[kdf5]

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)..."

[Bob M.]

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!

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

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!

I got the same interpretation from our state at the beginning of the season – use the case play for the ruling. The problem with the case play, it has always violated fundamental X.1. The distance penalty for any penalty may be declined.

The editorial change actually now supports the fundamental. I agree with you and Walt, this is more than an editorial change as written. And the case play is no longer supported by rule.