What's your ruling?
 

I posted this on the Fed website. Might as well post it here too...

PLAY: A leads 7-6 with 0:04 remaining in the 4th quarter, 3rd and 5 from A's 20. Team A is illegally in motion at the snap. A11 runs to A's 25 where he fumbles. B10 picks up the loose ball and runs to A's 3 where he is tackled. During B10's run, B8 blocks A3 in the back at A's 4 yardline. Time expires during the down. RULING: ??

I'll take a shot. This is off the cuff wothout looking it up first. It would appear that the "clean hands" rule would apply. In order for B to maintain possession they would have to decline the penalty against A and accept the penalty against themselves. 10 yards from the spot of the foul making it B's ball at the A14. Since a penalty was accepted we must play one untimed down. B takes a knee and it's over. The other option is for B to accept the penalty on A giving A an untimed down from the 25.

REPLY: daggo66...B is trailing in the game so they wouldn't be taking a knee.

I believe if, for whatever reason, "B" were to accept A's foul, that would consttitute a double foul and the game would be over.

REPLY: Not true...a double foul requires an untimed down, doesn't it? And why would B want that anyway since they're trailing in the game.

Bob,

I'm thinking the same thing as Drago. Since B got the ball with clean hands, they would decline the penalty by A. B would be penalized 10 yards from the 4, making it's 1st and 10 from the 14 with one untimed down to play. B would go for the end zone. BUT since B was in possession of the final play, and they committed the foul, should their be an untimed down?

Canadian Ruling
 

If A is leading, then B wants to prolong the game as long as possible, in order for a chance to win the game. I think that's true in all codes.

CANADIAN RULING:

Since B fouled before any B score (this ruling also works if B did score), they run the risk of A declining the B foul if B were to decline the A illegal motion, thus ending the game.

So, B would have to accept the A foul to prolong the game. A will then accept the B foul. The difference is 5 yards in A's favour, which yields A 1D/10 @ A25, for one untimed down. A would just "take a knee" to win the game, which is something they might not have been able to do in the original play, since that knee might have taken less than 4 seconds, which would give B one more play, in the red zone no less.

Edit: In Canada, a dual minor foul is administered and balanced from the POA of the 1st foul. In this case, it is the P(revious) LS.

10-2-2 . . . 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:
a. the foul by the team last gaining possession is not prior to the final change
of possession, and
b. the team last gaining possession declines the penalty for its opponent’s
foul(s), 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. After that decision by the team last in possession, the team not last in possession may decline or accept the foul by the team last in possession or choose which foul to have enforced in the case that the team last in possession committed more than one foul following the change.

B gets to decline A's penalty then A gets to decline B's penalty, game over.

REPLY: Well...someone has seen the 2008 rule book...

Ah ha they clarified the wording for this year. I had not realized that. Great news. :D

First, reading for comprehension helps, a lot. Second, I knew it was't as simple as it looked, otherwise Bob wouldn't have posted it, but I knew I would learn something by giving it a shot. Thanks Bob.

REPLY: OK, the correct answer in 2008 is...game over, go home. It's a rule change that's not really listed as such. It's listed as an editorial change.

Actually, a little history is in order...Last year the Fed changed the wording of this rule. They listed it as an 'editorial' change rather than a rule change. It sounded a bit like they were attempting to make it so that there was no requirement that B's foul must be enforced. A would have the option of declining (like the NCAA rule). However, the wording was so convoluted that you really couldn't tell for sure what the rule was intending. When pushed on it last year, the Fed said that there was no rule change intended (just an editorial change) and that we should handle it the same way we had in the past, i.e. enforce the penalty for B's foul regardless. Now...this season, they changed the wording again, and now it's quite clear that after B decides what he wants to do regarding A's foul, A gets to do the same for B's foul. That's why the answer to the posted play is that the game is over. Clearly, A will decline the penalty and won't allow B to have the untimed down they would get if A had accepted the penalty. No accepted penalties with an expired clock...game over. And, the Fed actually changed a case play (10.2.2 Situation C) to demonstrates that point. However, strangely enough, they still list it as an editorial change when it's anything but editorial. It's a substantive rule change and this play proves it.

As one person pointed out though, if B knows this rule and more importantly could anticipate A's response if he were to decline the penalty for A's motion foul, he might very well accept the penalty for A's motion foul and create a double foul since that's the only way he could squeeze another play out of the game. Otherwise, game over--he loses.

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.

REPLY: I know you're talking NCAA rules here, but if B declines the penalty for A's motion 's foul and then A declines the penalty for B's IBB, why are you saying there would be an untimed down? This would not be offsetting fouls, but rather a situation where there are no accepted penalties. The game would end, wouldn't it? This situation is the first exception to NCAA 10-1-4 which describes offsetting fouls.

Also, my original post was related to Federation rules where there is a 2008 change to this situation where Fed rules now coincide with NCAA. You're correct that there is no change to the NCAA rule for this situation.

Are we sure
 

Aggie,
If any penalty can be declined, and it can. What would be the reason for extending the period if indeed A and B both declined the penalties, B for obvious reasons, A for good reason just not so obvious. The rule for extending the period in the NCAA is very explicit that a penalty must be accepted. It also says in the penalty enforcement area that any penalty can be declined. I do agree however that the language in 10-4-1 doesn't appear to give A the option to decline their penalty, but I would think that it is just because this is most likely the only case where A would decline the penalty.

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.

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

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.

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?

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

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

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?

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