NAFOA POTD for Dec 10, 2007

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by NAFOA POTD for Dec 10, 2007

A leads 21-20 with three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. It is A's ball fourth and 1 yard to go on A's 45 yard line. A1 muffs the snap, and A2 holds while the ball is loose. B1 recovers and advances to A's 1 yard line where he is downed. During B1's advance, B2 clips at A's 10 yard line and time expires during the down. In an effort to prevent a double foul, Team B declines A2's foul. The captain of A then wishes to decline B2's foul.

How does this enforcement work?

[waltjp]

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.

[Warrenkicker]

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.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

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.

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.

[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?

[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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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

Phew!

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

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.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

A and B can't both decline penalties in this play.

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

Once B declines A's penalty B is allowed to keep the ball.

Agreed; this makes the most sense.

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.

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.

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

This makes sense.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by waltjp

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.

NCAA agrees with this ruling.