What's your ruling?

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by cmathews

Aggie,
...The rule for extending the period in the NCAA is very explicit that a penalty must be accepted.

REPLY: It also says that the period will be extended for offsetting fouls. And that's what may be getting people confused. My situation results in two declined penalties. That's not the same as offsetting fouls. Therefore...no extension.

[cmathews]

Bob,
I agree, and my crew is going to go home after the play if both penalties are declined..

[Texas Aggie]

I was thinking Team A didn't have a choice in the matter, and when reading the rule, one could think that. However, after reading the AR its clear Team A can decline Team B's penalty (which is consistent with other rules). So, if Team A declines in NCAA, the game is over.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

NCAA: Extend the period if B accepts the choice of enforcing their penalty and declining A's. Ball is put in play at the A14 on an untimed down. Likely a field goal will be attempted. There's no change in Team A options that I am aware of. They can decline Team B's foul, but that would put the ball at the 3 and we'd still have an untimed down.

This is one of those weird rules where B actually helped itself by committing a foul. Had they not committed one, the only way to extend the period was to give A back the ball and accept their foul. NCAA needs to rethink offsetting fouls.

I think the way that would make the most sense is to present the options in order of occurrence of the fouls, and once a penalty is accepted for a foul during a run, possession should be set, and only 15 yard penalties (and half the distance penalties in lieu of 15 yards) and DQs enforced for fouls after that time. So you shouldn't be able to gain or lose possession by any action occurring after a foul for which the penalty is accepted.

Robert

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I think the way that would make the most sense is to present the options in order of occurrence of the fouls, and once a penalty is accepted for a foul during a run, possession should be set, and only 15 yard penalties (and half the distance penalties in lieu of 15 yards) and DQs enforced for fouls after that time. So you shouldn't be able to gain or lose possession by any action occurring after a foul for which the penalty is accepted.

Robert

REPLY: So you would advocate eliminating the clean hands principle?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: So you would advocate eliminating the clean hands principle?

The way I look at it, my way would affirm the clean hands principle. Maybe we're just playing with words here.

The first principle I'm following is that the penalty erases history beyond the point of the foul for which the penalty is enforced. The 2nd principle is that an exception to the 1st needs to be made in case of fouls affecting safety and so as not to give the original non-offending team a "free shot".

In rugby after a live ball violation the ref lets play continue until satisfied the non-offending team gains no advantage by continuing play. Usually that's a situation where the team without the ball has fouled -- offside for instance -- and the team with the ball continues to try to advance it. If they commit a violation, they've gained no advantage, and the ref stops play and administers the penalty for the other team's infraction. "History is erased" when it comes to the subsequent foul by the team that was the victim of the previous foul. But I see a problem with this -- the "free shot" that that team gets to commit a serious violation without penalty. (Of course for something really nasty by that team, the ref can DQ the violator while administering the penalty on the other team.)

I believe the double foul problem is addressed best by what I proposed. The enforcement spot is what it would be for the 1st foul, and if the penalty for it is accepted, no penalty options would even be presented to the other team unless they're personal foul or USC. (If the penalty for foul 1 is declined, go to the option for the other team's violation.) If such a subsequent PF or USC did occur, then enforce it as if it occurred as a dead ball foul after enforcing the 1st penalty -- that is, it wouldn't affect possession. DQs still count regardless.

Robert

[Bob M.]

REPLY: We might be talking past each other. Here's one play I was considering: B10 intercepts A's pass in his own endzone and runs it out. During his return, B11 holds in the endzone. After that, A2 tackles B10 and is guilty of an incidental facemask (5-yd variety).

The way I read your proposal, A would be the first to choose his options. Of course, he'd accept the penalty for B's hold. Now, if I read you correctly, B suffers a safety here with no way out--even though A did foul on the play.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: We might be talking past each other. Here's one play I was considering: B10 intercepts A's pass in his own endzone and runs it out. During his return, B11 holds in the endzone. After that, A2 tackles B10 and is guilty of an incidental facemask (5-yd variety).

The way I read your proposal, A would be the first to choose his options. Of course, he'd accept the penalty for B's hold. Now, if I read you correctly, B suffers a safety here with no way out--even though A did foul on the play.

Yes, that's the way I'd have it if nothing else were changed. A2's violation not being a safety matter (not a personal foul), it would be ignored if A accepted the prior penalty. A2's violation occurred only during action which was putatively made possible by B11's prior violation, so why should it get any notice once the penalty for that violation was enforced?

Actually I'd also change the safety award to a touchback, because why should a safety be awarded when A was responsible for the ball's being in B's end zone? But you didn't ask about that.

Robert

[jontheref]

I dont believe by definition under the fed rule that ANY penalty can be declined. In this case, clean hands gives the option to the defense. They want the ball so they decline the A penalty and therefore by rule the penalty against the defense is accepted. Since it is accepted by rule then we extend. Am I missing something?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by jontheref

Am I missing something?

Yes, there was a change this year. It is discussed earlier in the thread.