Question for the white hats.

[Mike L]

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

[sloth]

I can see both sides of this one. I sort of go back and forth on what the right thing to do actually is, in the spirit of fair play. 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".

Calling a live ball foul would have resulted in 6 points off the board and put the offense back on the 45-50 yard line. Is that fair punishment? I don't know.

[OverAndBack]

More from the philosophies of my state:

"Obviously out of the play - Blocking an opponent 10 yards or more behind the runner shall be deemed unnecessary roughness."

But:

"For late hits away from the ball near the end of the play, lean towards dead-ball rather than live-ball foul."

I agree, it'd be the last time someone on that team (and probably the other team) did that if you made it live-ball and took the points off the board and it would sure send a message.

If it's a cheap shot, I think you need to nail it. A defender who's jogging 30 yards behind the ballcarrier who's gone isn't expecting to be blocked off his feet.

[Texas Aggie]

NCAA: they've made situations like this a point of emphasis this year and it is to be called a personal foul. What you call a "clean" block isn't really clean at all. I had virtually the same thing happen last night, except the block was near the line on a running play that went about 3-5 yards. It was unnecessary, the player being blocked made no attempt to further participate, and while it wasn't technically after the play (more like simultaneous with the end of it), we flagged it. I don't know what Fed says, but the NCAA rule is clear: if he makes no effort to participate in the play, you better not decleat him.

I had a back judge flag a block in the back on the punting team after the receiving team had gained possession and even close to the end of the play. We told him he needed to fit that foul into a personal foul category -- if it fits there -- or not have a call. You don't want to call a BIB. Either nail him or you have nothing.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by sloth

Is that fair punishment? I don't know.

There are many rules that we could consider unfair but they should still be enforced. Its harsh but then so is OPI.

One thing is for sure, enforcing as a live ball foul really nips that activity in the bud quickly. A competent coach will get tired of having touchdowns called back because of completely unecessary and stupid hits.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Welpe

There are many rules that we could consider unfair but they should still be enforced. Its harsh but then so is OPI.

One thing is for sure, enforcing as a live ball foul really nips that activity in the bud quickly. A competent coach will get tired of having touchdowns called back because of completely unecessary and stupid hits.

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

[ajmc]

Sloth, I think your dilemna may be caused by your trying to bite off more than you can chew. Your job title does't include deciding what is fair punishment, or not, neither does the job title of "coach", so their input on the question is totally immaterial.

We shouldn't presume that the rule makers didn't fully contemplate this type situation when designing these rules, so we should deal with what we're given. Generally, football rules are intended to be simply black, or white. As situations of gray develop, where necessary and appropriate, exceptions are included to cover significant deviations.

If you're looking for a fudge factor, the question of whether or not the runner was still actually in the field of play when the foul was committed is an option, but the answer is clear, the rules don't differentiate between a cheap shot on a breakaway versus a cheap shot anywhere else. Possibly the idea is to really enforce the notion that cheap shots, wherever they take place, are simply not acceptable.

Will coaches whine and feint shock and disbelief? Sometimes, but what difference should that make. A smart coach will use the example as a teaching moment that will likely prevent such action from ever taking place again. You ALWAYS have to consider the "other side of the coin".

What will be the reaction to your credibility by the offended team? Will they judge you as being biased? Will they take you decision as an excuse to levy their own form of retaliation? Will the player who was fouled be motivated to seek retaliation? Whichever decision you make, there will be consequences some of which are known and controllable, others over which you have no idea of, or control over. When following the rule, consequences seem much more predictable.

One can call it anything they want, describing it as a, "'live ball foul treated as a dead ball foul", is no more accurate than calling it, "coping out because you were afraid of making someone unhappy". It's a decision each of us have to make in all sorts of circumstances, most not as graphic as the question suggests.

[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

[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 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

[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...