Double Foul

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

I am not sure I can agree with that. If Team B had not fouled, Team A would have had the ball at a much better spot. By fouling, Team B has gained an advantage.

Not that it would happen often but an astute Team B player, seeing that Team A had been flagged for an illegal block after a long gain, could consider that a face mask would help his team and act accordingly!

And in the Canadian rules, it you have multiple personal fouls on a play, you get the yardage for every single one.

The rule is the rule.

There is an advantage gained by the second team that commits a live ball foul. Consider, A commits a foul for an illegal formation. B during the same down commits a pass interference. Clearly, B's foul is more egregious than A's foul.

A may have gained an advantage by the illegal formation. B definitely gained an advantage by the pass interference. What if, A had not been flagged would that have left B unfairly penalized?

Football is unique in that play is allowed to continue even though a foul has occurred. Soccer does allow an official to signify "Play On!" when it is determined in the official's judgment the ball with the ball has an advantage.

As long as the rules state any foul committed during a down will be penalized at the end of the down there exists the probability of an inequity. To address the possible inequity would require the basic fundamentals of the game to be amended.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Football is unique in that play is allowed to continue even though a foul has occurred. Soccer does allow an official to signify "Play On!" when it is determined in the official's judgment the ball with the ball has an advantage.

Not true.

In basketball, a player in the act of shooting is allowed to continue his/her shot even though fouled so that the act of fouling does not take away the player's right to shoot.

In baseball, if a defensive player interferes with a runner, play will continue and the runner is allowed to attempt to advance to a base beyond the base they might have gotten without the interference so that the act of interference does not take away a runner's right to advance.

In hockey, a penalty is deferred to when the team penalized gains possession of the puck or the non-offending team scores to not have the penalty take away the right to try to score.

The fundamental principle in almost all sports is that a team should not benefit by violating the rules. In many cases the penalty and the disadvantage cannot be equitable for reasons you have stated. But in this case, to say that if B fouls Team A is worse off should not be the case and in non-NF rule sets they seem to have considered this.

[Theisey]

How do the other rule codes handle this specific case play?
NFL: I don't know.
NCAA: the fouls offset and the down is replayed.

Simple and easy to enforce.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by Theisey

How do the other rule codes handle this specific case play?
NFL: I don't know.
NCAA: the fouls offset and the down is replayed.

Simple and easy to enforce.

For NCAA, I was only going by what another poster put and that was to allow one team to decline.

For NFL, I just checked and they will also replay the down.

For Canada, they will enforce both fouls from the point of enforcement of the first foul. Also, they will allow declination by one team.

So if the other poster was wrong about NCAA then I guess it is just the Canadian rule set that has better equity in this situation. And yes, it is slightly more complicated to enforce. It is not that bad though.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

For NCAA, I was only going by what another poster put and that was to allow one team to decline.

That was true at one time, apparently not now.

[ajmc]

I don't know whether it's a question of some guys don't get it, or just that they don't want to get it. Football is a game, a very popular game, not a morals play. Like any other game there are rules and if the rules get too complicated and too involved thay can take the enjoyment out of the game.

Trying to set the rules to perfectly balance every conceivable possibility is a fools errand that serves nobody and detracts from the game. Current rules cover 99% possibilities, and although some seem determined to focus on the 1%, or part thereof, that is currently handled by an extra measure of judgment rather than a specific written instruction, you're spitting into the wind.

Everybody doesn't have to agree with the rules, they should however, be aware of them and accept that they must conform to them.

[OverAndBack]

And, eventually, they change anyway. If something is way out of whack, usually someone has noticed and they get around to closing the loophole or whatever.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Football is unique in that play is allowed to continue even though a foul has occurred.

Unique?? No way! In most sports I can think of at least some play continues following fouls. There are some where play is killed immediately -- court-and-rally sports such as handball, tennis, badminton -- because continued play would obviously be futile. There are others where the players take turns such as croquet & pool where you enforce immediately because it's no big deal to "interrupt" play. But rugby, lacrosse, hockey, baseball, racing, basketball and other continuous action sports all allow continuation of play.

Robert