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.

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!

REPLY: Been there...done that...have the scars.

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.

Don't confuse declining the distance with declining the foul. A penalty may be accepted without accepting yardage.

Game over B looses. Since time expired during the down, B would HAVE to accept the penalty against A for holding in order to extend the game for an untimed down (NF 3.3.3). A would retain the ball and be assessed. If B doesn't, take the ball and hold it up; that's game. A would undoubtedly take a knee and call it the day. This is not a double foul. These are 2 live ball fouls pre and post change. Since B got the ball with clean hands, prior to the change, they retain the ball and get the option first. They would undoubtedly decline A's penalty. But their hands got dirty after the change, A has the option to accept or decline. Going back to 3.3.3, A would probably decline....game over.

The way I understand that is you can decline the yardage but you still have to accept other aspects of the foul such as LOD or automatic first down. Is that correct?

Correct.