Question for the white hats.
 

As a first year referee, I wanted to bounch this off some more seasoned officials.

I have a long run by A that goes for a score. While the runner was somewhere between the 10 and goal line; I see that around the 40 yard line (approx. 30 yards behind the ball carrier) an A lineman give a decleating block (completely clean) against a B player that was jogging. Obviously, I threw the flag. I applied it as a dead ball persoanl foul. I know that by the rule book, if it was a live ball foul we're bringing it back to the spot of the foul.

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?

I've had this happen numerous times, especially at the pee-wee levels. We call it a 'live ball foul treated as a dead ball foul'. Coaches (on both sides) usually do not have a problem with the call when you explain it to them.

Also remember, even if it's legal a block, it could also be considered flagrant.

They chewed me out here as a fan a few months ago for even suggesting that in doubtful cases (where it's a difficult call whether the foul or TD occurred 1st) the presumption of a dead ball foul should be made. And even after one poster who is an official said his association says to lean toward dead ball foul.

My argument was that, first of all it frequently would be a difficult timing call for the official with coverage, second that looking away to see if the ball was still alive distracts one from watching for whether the fouled player retaliates, and third that for the same type of foul, the spot of the foul varies the enforcement spot enormously. The danger to or ill will engendered in the player of B would've been exactly the same had the foul been 30 or 70 yards behind the ball, and the danger or insult to the player of B was the foul's only effect, so why should there effectively be a 40 yard difference in the penalties?

Robert

However, the other side of the coin is nothing stops that kind of BS faster than taking 6 pts off the board.

But that'd be an argument for increasing every type of penalty the game has. You could deduct 6 points from a team's score for every cheap shot.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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!

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.

I lean towards enforcing it as a LIVE ball foul if there is any doubt. Of course, I don't see calling back a TD as a big deal. Don't foul and we won't be having that discussion.

We had a IBB on a kick-return TD last night. Kids on the sidelines ran onto the field, excited, and the L almost ran into them going down the field. 25 yards in penalties (10+15) later.....

I think if your association or "local practice" is to leave your sack in the locker room, then hang it up. If it's live ball then call it that. If not, then go to the succeeding spot but don't be afraid of getting booed. I agree wholeheartedly with ajmc. Don't forget that it's the National Federation of High Schools that write these rules. The very schools you are officiating. It's their rule, not yours.

Celebration Penalties
 

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.

Celebration Penalty
 

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.

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

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

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?"

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.

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

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.

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

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?

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... ;)

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.

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."

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.

Thanks,
I know thats why we get the big bucks, but I like to be able to explain my judgment process to other people without saying my judgment says so.

ticky tac:
So, if the ball carrier can't/doesn't score, yet is far away can you call this?

I can't give you a hard yardage answer. Just tell the coach the player who was blocked was well out of the play and the hit was totally unnecessary.

The majority of these will jump out at you if you are being a good clean-up official. You will see the player carrying the brick and targetting an unsuspecting opponent.

A player who is either jogging downfield without a care as to where the ball is or a player standing still watching the ball are often targeted for this kind of illegal hit. However, those aren't the only two that can be fouled. A player in chase mode who is losing ground to the runner and more of an observer can also be fouled if you judge him to be "out of the play". The first two should be easy to get. The third one is more difficult.

Judgment. Takes time to hone one's judgment in this game. Often there aren't hard and fast rules. Sometimes there are. Sometimes it's a matter of one guy might say 20 yards isn't enough and another might say the guy has given himself up so it was just totally unnecessary and he's flagging it.

REPLY: Or if he isn't trying to.

REPLY: Absolutely.