Question for the white hats.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by big_houn

Hey Guys, listen I have a question about celebration penalties and how it is applied. So here is the situation

The team has scored the TD. Line up for the p.a.t (2 point conversion), make the 2-point conversion, whistle blows and the play is over. The running back spins the ball in the end zone and draw an excessive celebration call. Now, is the penalty assessed on the kickoff, or do the official take the two points off the score board, assess the 15 yard penalty and force the team to retry the p.a.t..

Now, I was under the impression that once the play was over and the whistle is blown and an unsportsman like celebration penalty happens the penalty yardage is assessed on the kickoff.

I can understand if the penalty happen after the TD, then the penalty is assessed on the p.a.t.. But the penalty happened after the 2-point conversion. Can some please shed some light this for me.....Thanks
!

An unsportsmanlike foul after a try is assessed from the succeeding spot. Points remain on the board.

[big_houn]

Thanks kdf5, I though that was the case. My youth football team was the team in the senario I described, and when the official took the point off the board and applied the penalty I was floored.

When I tried to an explaintion, he told me that the other team had the option having the penalty assessed on the kick off or moving us back 15 yard and retry the p.a.t. We had the monmentum, and that 2 point conversion would have tied the game.

My kids were devasted and that turned the tide of the game, and they regain the momentum. We ended up losing by 15.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Mike L

No it wouldn't. It's an argument for enforcing the penalty as per the current rule set.

No, it's not. "[N]othing stops that kind of BS faster than taking 6 pts off the board" means only that you're satisfied in that particular instance. It's not an argument for enforcing penalties "by the book" in general, because one could just as easily come up with cases that don't elicit such a statement from you.

It's a live ball foul by the offense behind the basic spot. I have no problem eliminating the "philosphy" of only calling penalties at the point of attack/effect the play when an egrigious safety related foul like this happens. Today is not the football of yore when it was mayhem on the field. What if the next hit causes serious injury because someone decides risking only the PAT is worth payback?

But it has exactly the same risk of causing serious injury whether it takes 6 points off the board or occurs on a play where the penalty has so little effect that the other team declines it. So you can't use the danger of injury as a reason to enforce it in general as a live rather than dead ball foul.

It would not be unreasonable for the rules to penalize fouls with loss of points (or award to the other team of points) in the score irrespective of the play situation. Penalty points are given in other sports, it's just that football has traditionally not done so.

Robert

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

A friend of mine and I were discussing your OPI penalty. It is very harsh! We almost couldn't believe it!

Until about 1970 in NCAA, the penalty was loss of ball. And why not? If opponents have equal right to the pass, why shouldn't possession go to the player who was fouled? I'll take a rough guess that it was also loss of ball in Canadian football until approximately then.

Robert

[Ed Hickland]

I had one of those decleaters on a TD run Friday night. Coach saw the whole thing and started yelling at the player. To me it was obvious the whistle had blown and no question in my mine the play was dead but had a TD been scored.

Not intentionally but I went downfield to see the result of the play I heard from the sidelines one of the coaches ask, "Did the touchdown count?"

[Forksref]

Live ball.

It's a safety issue. And...I usually believe that I have not been given the authority to change rulings/enforcements. If I do, then what other rules do I think are unfair that I should interpret to my liking??

I have worked at this and have studied the rules and I have been given the authority to apply the rules given to me, even if I don't like them.

[GoodScout]

Originally Posted by sloth

I went as far as to ask a couple friends of mine that are HS head coaches (we're church deacons together). As I expected, their first question to me was "...it would depend if I was on offense or defense"...

Boy, doesn't that just sum up ever coach's view on penalty enforcement in a nutshell!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Forksref

Live ball.

It's a safety issue.

What do those 2 issues have to do with each other? Wouldn't it be just as much (if anything, more of) a safety issue if it occurred while the ball was dead? It's the question of whether the ball was alive or dead that you're ruling on, and I don't see how the dangerousness of the act in question bears.

And...I usually believe that I have not been given the authority to change rulings/enforcements. If I do, then what other rules do I think are unfair that I should interpret to my liking??

The question was not whether you would do something contrary to the rules, but where to put the benefit of doubt. In any officiating there's a tendency to make a ruling one way or another in case of doubt. Sometimes the way to rule in such cases is spelled out in the rules themselves, but usually not.

Robert

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

No, it's not. "[N]othing stops that kind of BS faster than taking 6 pts off the board" means only that you're satisfied in that particular instance. It's not an argument for enforcing penalties "by the book" in general, because one could just as easily come up with cases that don't elicit such a statement from you.


But it has exactly the same risk of causing serious injury whether it takes 6 points off the board or occurs on a play where the penalty has so little effect that the other team declines it. So you can't use the danger of injury as a reason to enforce it in general as a live rather than dead ball foul.

It would not be unreasonable for the rules to penalize fouls with loss of points (or award to the other team of points) in the score irrespective of the play situation. Penalty points are given in other sports, it's just that football has traditionally not done so.

Robert

My advise, try not to be a mind reader without the ability to do so. It's nothing to do with my being somehow satisfied with points coming off the board. I'm just as content whether pts get taken off the board, or if a big gain is negated, or even if a small gain is negated. That type of hit, so far behind the play on a player not actively participating in the play is no longer viewed as acceptable. Simple matter of knowing today's rule and not giving a crap about how they did things back in the leather helmet days. My content is generated by enforcing today's rules as written. The only thing the "6 pts off the board" comment is geared to is the attitude of idiot coaches that fail to realize that type of hit is not acceptable and the loss of said points getting thru to them quickly that things had better change and change fast. This rule has nothing to do with points taken or awarded. It has everything to do with enforcing the rule as written in a safety related area that just so happens in this one instance also taking points off the board. Every live ball foul by the offense committed by during a scoring play negates the score. Why is it you seem so willing to defend that score just because the foul happened so far behind the play?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Mike L

My advise, try not to be a mind reader without the ability to do so.

We're all mind readers, every waking moment. For example, right now you're trying to determine whether I'm being sincere or ironic - how exactly I'm asserting what I'm writing.

Sometimes, but only sometimes, I'll help with a sign. The intention behind which you then must also interpret...

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by sloth

Any other referees in that situation willing to squint and make a live ball personal foul a dead ball personal foul...provided that the foul has no bearing on the play and the foul is imminant within a second or two?

Do not make it anything. Call it what it is. Nothing more - nothing less. When in doubt...??? I would get the entire crew together to see if anyone had definite knowledge of the status of the ball. If no one did, I would probably go dead ball on one that close.

I had a reverse situation earlier this year. A linebacker took a cheap shot at an offensive lineman on a long run. The hit happened just after the runner entered the end zone. I would have loved to have made it live ball and enforced it on the kickoff, but I didn't, because it wasn't. We went half the distance on the try.

[hawkishowl20]

Can someone state the rule that defines a clean hit or block as a penalty due to its position in relationship to the ball / play. I honestly just cannot find it. I want to educate about this but I don’t have the parameters to do so.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by hawkishowl20

Can someone state the rule that defines a clean hit or block as a penalty due to its position in relationship to the ball / play. I honestly just cannot find it. I want to educate about this but I don’t have the parameters to do so.

REPLY: NF 9-4-3: (in part) "No player or nonplayer shall:
.
.
.
b. Charge into or throw an opponent to the ground after he is obviously out of the play, or after the ball is clearly dead either in or out of bounds.
.
.
.
g. Make any other contact with an opponent which is deemed unnecessary and which incites roughness."

[hawkishowl20]

That is what I remembered. I guess I was hoping their was some guideline as to what obviously out of the play is. 10 yards from ball? 15? 20? Behind the ball? In front of? I know this is ticky tac, but I’m curious as to what others think it is.

I know this is ridiculous, but you could interrupt “out of the play” as virtually impossible because they are on a football field during a “play.” That is what the old and masochistic coaches think. I don’t know the guideline as to what that definition is, I can only guess… which I try to eliminate by asking questions.

[Jim D]

Originally Posted by hawkishowl20

That is what I remembered. I guess I was hoping their was some guideline as to what obviously out of the play is. 10 yards from ball? 15? 20? Behind the ball? In front of? I know this is ticky tac, but I’m curious as to what others think it is.

I know this is ridiculous, but you could interrupt “out of the play” as virtually impossible because they are on a football field during a “play.” That is what the old and masochistic coaches think. I don’t know the guideline as to what that definition is, I can only guess… which I try to eliminate by asking questions.

If a player can't possibly get to the ball carrier before he gets to the goal line, he would be out of the play. It's simply a matter of judgment. That's why we get the big bucks.