Penalty & Enforcement Question

[WGGriffon]

I was working a game last week and a call was made by by our R and enforced over the objection of the BJ and U. Here is the scenario:

A throws an interception at B's 30 yard line. During B's return at A's 40 there is a "block in the back" (as the referee called it) by A. The run ends on A's 19yard line. The R signals a BIB and proceeds to insist that it is a live ball foul and should be spotted at the 9.5 yd line.

I'd love to hear someones feedback.

[Jimmie24]

Sounds like a live ball foul to me. A live ball foul occurs during the down.

[JasonTX]

What were the objections.

[WGGriffon]

how do you have a block in the back against what is essentailly D. If anything, shouldnt it had been Unsportsman? Should the enforcement have been from the end of the run?

[Patton]

A BIB can be called on the defense. It's a bit rare, but none the less, it can be called. His enforcement was correct. It's certainly not an USC call, as these type fouls are non-contact. He could have called it a personal foul if it was well away from the play. Either way, in this case, the result would have been the same.

[MrUmpire]

Originally Posted by WGGriffon

how do you have a block in the back against what is essentailly D. If anything, shouldnt it had been Unsportsman? Should the enforcement have been from the end of the run?

USC is a non-contact foul. Sounds like there was contact. Enforcement sounds correct.

[ajmc]

Although team designations remain the same during a down, when there is a change of possession the team gaining possession is now the offense (See NF:2.43.1). NF 2.5.2 defines blocking in the back as a foul aginst, "an opponent" and therefore refers to either team.

For a BIB committed by the defense (the team NOT in possession of the ball) during a running play, the basic spot is the End of the (intercepter's) Run.

[WGGriffon]

Thanks for the insight...I had it right!

[bisonlj]

We had a similar situation last year on a kick where our HL flagged the kicking team for a block in the back. He was technically right in that the player did push a member of the receiving team in the back and this is supported by rule. We discussed it as a crew and with other officials and were in agreement that this probably should be serious enough to be considered a personal foul (unnecessary roughness) before you flag it. Anything less than that you let go or at least talk to the offender. Oddly, the coach is more likely to accept the PF with a 15-yard penalty than a BIB with a 10-yard penalty in that case.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

We had a similar situation last year on a kick where our HL flagged the kicking team for a block in the back. He was technically right in that the player did push a member of the receiving team in the back and this is supported by rule. We discussed it as a crew and with other officials and were in agreement that this probably should be serious enough to be considered a personal foul (unnecessary roughness) before you flag it. Anything less than that you let go or at least talk to the offender. Oddly, the coach is more likely to accept the PF with a 15-yard penalty than a BIB with a 10-yard penalty in that case.

I can think of a situation in which a BIB by the defense could've been a tactical advantage: shoving a trailing player who was not in the blocker's path to the ballcarrier, but was in position to receive a backwards pass.

I can think of another: hitting a player of R to get him off his peeling-back path in setting up a wall. Usually that would occur before the kick ended, though.

Robert