Change of Possession, untimed down??

[ajmc]

I think you might be reading a little too much into the verbiage. As we know, "Loss of Down" actually means a loss of the right to repeat the down.

The Change of Possession eliminates any possibility of "B" repeating the down if the penalty is accepted, so "B" cannot suffer being deprived of repeating the down when the penalty is accepted, so that provision of the penatly is not applicable.

[Texas Aggie]

Mike/Jason, correct me if I'm wrong, but I think under NCAA rules, you would play an untimed down if team A accepted the penalty. The LOD only applies to Team A and only if before change of possession.

[DrMooreReferee]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I think you might be reading a little too much into the verbiage. As we know, "Loss of Down" actually means a loss of the right to repeat the down.

The Change of Possession eliminates any possibility of "B" repeating the down if the penalty is accepted, so "B" cannot suffer being deprived of repeating the down when the penalty is accepted, so that provision of the penatly is not applicable.

I understand your position. But still I have to ask myself this question. Illegal forward handing is a FOUL. And 3-3-4b states ...fouls that SPECIFY loss of down.... So, does the foul for illegal forward handing SPECIFY loss of down? Absolutely it does. It just so happens that we don't get to enforce it, when there is a change of possession. Just because we don't enforce that particular portion of the penalty doesn't mean that its not there.

And, I decided to dig a little bit further. And what I found makes me even more confident on this. If you turn to page 97 of the rulebook, there is a summary there of all penalties. Take a look at #'s 15,16 and 17. #15 is for illegal forward handing and it says (also loss of down), with no mention of A or B. However, #16 and #17 are both Illegal forward pass, but they thought enough of it to seperate them to identify that when B does it its not a LOD. So, if I had worded my play differently, and put a illegal forward pass in there, that was caught for a TD after a change of possession, then I guess this penalty summary would support your arguement. But not the case with illegal forward handing.

Very interesting this subject.

[ODJ]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

I understand your position. But still I have to ask myself this question. Illegal forward handing is a FOUL. And 3-3-4b states ...fouls that SPECIFY loss of down.... So, does the foul for illegal forward handing SPECIFY loss of down? Absolutely it does. It just so happens that we don't get to enforce it, when there is a change of possession. Just because we don't enforce that particular portion of the penalty doesn't mean that its not there.

And, I decided to dig a little bit further. And what I found makes me even more confident on this. If you turn to page 97 of the rulebook, there is a summary there of all penalties. Take a look at #'s 15,16 and 17. #15 is for illegal forward handing and it says (also loss of down), with no mention of A or B. However, #16 and #17 are both Illegal forward pass, but they thought enough of it to seperate them to identify that when B does it its not a LOD. So, if I had worded my play differently, and put a illegal forward pass in there, that was caught for a TD after a change of possession, then I guess this penalty summary would support your arguement. But not the case with illegal forward handing.

Very interesting this subject.

So Doc,
If B throws an IFP after a CoP, enforce the penalty (no score) with an untimed down for B (becoming the new A). Yes? (I'm working Fed. on this and welcome NCAA.)

[DrMooreReferee]

Originally Posted by ODJ

So Doc,
If B throws an IFP after a CoP, enforce the penalty (no score) with an untimed down for B (becoming the new A). Yes? (I'm working Fed. on this and welcome NCAA.)

Well, its tough, but yeah I guess so. The penalty summary on page 97 would tend to support that way of thinking. I still go back to this... an illegal forward pass does specify a LOD. We just don't enforce it after a change of possession, there's no way to do so. I think the rules were changed a couple years ago to prevent a team from commiting an intentional foul in order to get an untimed down. But there are plenty of things they could do intentionally on that interception return that don't include LOD. Like clipping, holding, etc. But still, if I'm respecting the way the penalty summary is written (and I think we should), then I'd have to say there is a difference between illegal forward handing and illegal forward passes after a change of possession.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

an illegal forward pass does specify a LOD. We just don't enforce it after a change of possession, there's no way to do so.

There isn't now, but there could be.

[JugglingReferee]

As soon as I saw the OP, I knew that Goodman would be making those points, including the 0th down. I should have made them first to look smart.

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Heh. The funny thing is that if you go into the early 20th Century, offside pass was the only foul as that word was then used in Canadian football.

Can you expand on this?

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But Fed doesn't define "where the runner is positioned" in relation to a particular part of the body, and if you're releasing a ball, some part of the runner's body must be touching it and hence at the same yard line.

I made this same point when I was picked up by the Canadian NCAA equivalent.

I also made the point that since a handoff is all about ball position in Cdn ball (as everything is), the point of origin and point of termination of a handoff pass are always the same, due to the physical nature of releasing a ball when another has shared control with you. If the two points are always the same, there never really is a forward handoff, therefore never an illegal handoff. The definition needs to be cleaned up.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Can you expand on this?

Practically nothing to expand on. It's just the way they chose to wrote things for a while. 1925 & thereabouts the word "foul" was not being used in Canadian football generally for violations of the rules, but specifically to mean what would now be subsumed in offside pass. I've no idea why; rules makers get on these terminology kicks from time to time.

I also made the point that since a handoff is all about ball position in Cdn ball (as everything is), the point of origin and point of termination of a handoff pass are always the same, due to the physical nature of releasing a ball when another has shared control with you. If the two points are always the same, there never really is a forward handoff, therefore never an illegal handoff. The definition needs to be cleaned up.

Redefining this in terms of ball position instead of position of the players (which was originally judged by foot position) simplified things generally, but left this one meaningless.

You can try to "do the right thing" by figuring out what gives an unfair advantage and ruling that way, but that's a form of divination that I sometimes engage in but can't claim to be expert at. Since it doesn't directly advance the ball, I could say that all handoff passes are fair.

Or you could just fall back on the old rules by which the violation is on the part of the player who by body position is offside when playing the ball, if a thrown forward pass to that player would not have been legal under the circumstances.

Last I looked the NFL rules were "interesting" on this. The motion used by the player handing the ball off determined whether it was a forward pass. But where/when does that motion start & end? If the player extends at the shoulders & elbows in front of him with the ball a distance, but then at the last split second pulls it back a little before the exchange occurs, do you judge it just by that last pull-back? It's as bad as or worse than the "tuck" rule!

Robert