NAFOA POTD for Dec 10, 2007
 

How does this enforcement work?

FED -

If B declines A's penalty A will most likely (strong urging if necessary) decline the penalty on B and accept the result of the play. Game Over.

B would be wise to accept A's penalty, which would result in a Double Foul and an untimed down.

A and B can't both decline penalties in this play. Once B declines A's penalty B is allowed to keep the ball. A, by rule, is forced to accept B's penalty and it will be enforced from the spot of the foul. B gets an untimed down at A-25.

If B doesn't decline the penalty by A then we have offsetting fouls and the down is replayed.

NCAA agrees with this ruling.

Let's forget the timing issue for a moment. B got the ball with clean hands. If B wants to keep the ball they'd have to decline the penalty on A. A would then enforce the penalty on B.

In the POTD cited time ran out on during B's return. If A accepts the penalty on B then B would have a chance to run a play because a penalty was accepted during the last timed down of the game. By declining the penalty the result of the play stands - B's ball on A's 1-yard line, 0:00 time remaining int the game.

The only way B has a chance is to accept the penalty on A and have a double foul. A would have to snap the ball for an untimed down.

The problem with your logic is that A is not forced to accept B's foul.

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.

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.

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.

What is the rationale behind restricting who can decline and who can't?

Agreed; this makes the most sense.

This not does make sense to me.

Since time ran out during the play, and A is winning, B is gaining a huge advantage here. If B2 sees that B1 will not reach the goal line, he can "purposely" clip someone to have one more play - a chance to win. A stopped B short of the goal line despite B's illegal actions. A should be allowed to decline B's clip and end the game.

This makes sense.

Phew!

THey just don't have the option to decline. If team A wanted the opportunity to decline B's penalty then they shouldn't have fouled before they gave up possession.

Do we have a problem understanding what the word 'until' means?

the team that was not last in possession has no penalty options until the team last in possession has made its penalty decision

Seems flawed to me. If B gained the ball on clean hands with an A foul, they can then foul on purpose to gain an advantage.

Say B1 was heading for the EZ and sees that he won't make it. He facemasks A1 as A1 tackles him. Back 15 with an untimed down, right?

B gets one more play to kick the FG to win: all because B commited a foul.

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.