Double Foul
 

In a high school game Team A has the ball first and ten on their own 20. A23 runs to B's 20 where B46 yanks him down by the face mask. During the run A65 bocked B56 in the back at B's 35. Since this is a double foul the ball returns to A's 20 for the down to be replayed. This seems like an inequitable solution since B is being rewarded for committing a foul. If B had not committed a face mask the ball would have been first and ten for A from B's 45. Are their othere situations where a team can benefit from committing a double foul?

Canadian Ruling
 

In Canada we would have a more equitable application. Both fouls would be applied at the point of application of the first foul. Assuming the Point Ball Held (where the ball was when the blocking from the rear occurred) was the same as the foul, we would apply both penalties at the B 35 and so the result would be 1st and 10 at the B35.

Can't Team A decline the face mask foul so that the block in the rear is applied at the B 35? This would be a better result that starting over at the previous spot.

This play illustrates the definition of a double foul under NF rules and the only option is to replay the down from the previous spot.

There is absolute "equity" in the rule as currently written. If you don't foul, good things will happen, when you foul you have to pay a penalty (which are all spelled out in the rules code). If every decision required the judgment of Solomon, the rule book would weigh 50 pounds and games would last several days.

Multiple fouls offer the same tendency for inequity, when a team fouls 5 times during the same play, the offended team gets to choose 1 to have enforced. The other 4 go unpunished.

The secret to avoiding penalties, that some may perceive as inequitable, is "don't foul", advice that has been given to both teams before the contest.

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.

In the heat of the action, is this actually going to happen, intentionally? :confused:

But in this case the lesson for B is "do foul", because team A would lose the gain they'd made before fouling. And equity could be considerably improved without a 50 lb. rule book.

I don't know about currently, but on fouls by both teams during a down NCAA's principle used to be to present options and enforcements in the order of the occurrence of the fouls, similarly to the Canadian rule. Fed obviously doesn't allow that.

We've had a similar posting about the perverse incentive produced by Fed's "loose ball play" enforcement.

Robert

Yes, I think so. On a long gainer by A, if a player of B sees a flag, they should commit a PF before the ball becomes dead. If the flag was for a foul by A, you get the situation here. If the flag was for a foul by B, it was probably a PF, and the add'l PF doesn't cost them.

Robert

If you find me the 17-year-old high school player with the presence of mind to know what a flag is for (if he sees the flag at all) and then to say to himself, "Self, you need to foul somebody so these things offset", please send him to my house. I can probably have a much easier time convincing him to mow the lawn than I do with my 15-year-old.

It's been my experience that there are three groups of people with the least rules knowledge: Broadcasters, coaches, then players.

:rolleyes:

That's pretty much what I was thinking. I don't give the MN football players as much credit as Robert does the football players where he officiates.

I could be wrong. It wouldn't be the first time, just the next.

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.

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.

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.