Met when? You're reading it as meaning those conditions must be met at the time of the presentation of the penalty choice, which means both conditions obtained throughout the down. I'm reading it "last run ends beyond the neutral zone and there has been no change of team possession" as obtaining at an instant during that down. So if the last run ends beyond the neutral zone and at that instant there has been no change of team possession during that down, then the requisites are satisfied.

To read it your way would mean that a change of possession following the end of the run would affect the spot of enforcement, which is downright silly. It wouldn't change the spot for an ordinary foul by the defense, so why would it affect RTP?

Just read in isolation "when last run ends beyond the neutral zone and there has been no change of team possession" and it should be clear that "when" refers to a point in time. Otherwise they could've written "if". The "and" is subsidiary to the "when", not equal to it. Also, if it "no change in possession" referred to the entire down, they would've written "was", not "has been". "Has been" shows they meant to refer to the condition at the time the last run ended.

Robert

Robert,
I believe no change in team possession is pretty simple English to understand. There can be no change of TP during the down.
If the rulesmakers wanted it "translated" in the manner you are stating, I would think they would use entirely different language like "and the passing team has final possesion at the end of the down" or somesuch as they have used similarly for other rules within the book. That way it would not matter how many times TP changed.
This however, is pretty simple. In an A-B-A situation, A's choice becomes accept the results of the play or enforce from the previous spot.

Why is it silly? Nothing in the text of the rule supports your reading: if the rule makers had intended your reading, they could have added "with no prior change of possession" or words signaling an important temporal distinction. The plain text of the rule supports my interpretation.

I've already explained a possible rationale for this reading: RTP occurs after a legal pass. If the pass is completed, it maximizes the penalty (and therefore the disincentive to RTP) to make the end of the run the enforcement spot.

If, however, the offense screws up, for instance by turning the ball over after a completed pass, then they're not entitled to the extra yardage. Previous spot.

Do you have a comparable rationale for your interpretation?

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

RTP is a UR foul, which is applied at either PLS or PBD.

Result: Team A 1D/10 @ B-40.

But that's not what they intended. The MO interpret'n looks like what they intended, treating a completed pass by the non-fouling team similarly to a running play. True, they could have expressed it other ways (although not the way you suggested, which produces different results, albeit rarely), and they could have been clearer. But I think MO got it right.

Robert

You think it's easy to write this stuff? Why wouldn't you look at "prior" the same way as "has been", and figure it to refer to the entire down? Hey, there was a change of possession "prior" to the penalty enforcement, so....

But if they "screw up" in ways other than fouling following a foul by the opponents, such as by losing possession following a foul during a run, that doesn't change the enforcement spot -- except in the oddball case that's been widely reported around here as screwy, where they gain a better spot by producing a loose ball behind the neutral zone.

Sure, a foul by the defense during a run, and the offense gets the better of either the spot of the foul or the end of the run -- it not mattering if the offense loses the ball afterward because it was the other team's foul, after all. For the defense, a turnover is only as good as a tackle in such a situation. Are you saying that's not enough of an incentive to play defense, because stripping the ball in that interval is no longer rewarded? That the advance beyond the spot of the foul should be negated by a subsequent turnover, so they should change the 3-and-1 enforcement rule in that case?

BTW, in rugby many referees are practically cruel to the defense in the amount of opportunity to gain an advantage by the attacking side they'll allow before calling a penalty on the defense, and it can be said this reduces the defense's incentive. However, if the penalty's called it still goes back to the spot of the foul, so that can't be used as a comparable example.

Robert

And that's true because Canadian football has no end-of-run enforcements per se, right? So it's consistent with running plays.

Correct. But you knew that. :D

2-34-3: A change of possession occurs when the opponent gains player possession during the down. The penalty says if there is no change of team possession

PENALTY says: 15 yards and a first down from end of last run when last run ends beyond the neutral zone and there has been no change of team possession, or otherwise 15 yards and first down from previous spot

Absent any verbiage in the rule that would support some "point in time" theory, we have to assume change of possession as occuring at some point during the down.

Therefore, if B gains possession DURING THE DOWN, penalty is enforced from the previous spot.

If A had not fumbled (a bad thing) and allowed B to get it (an even worse thing), they would have gotten the foul from the end of their run.

I agree with Mike. The rule is fairly cut and dried. I would not try and twist it around too much.

I think this play was in the 97-98 Case Book when the rule was changed to add RTP onto the end of the run, but I cannot find my old case books (5 moves and they have strangely disappeared).

Then on what basis do you think the cited MO interpreter decided it mattered only if it was before A's run beyond the NZ?

who knew that last run beyond the NZ and no change of team possession were such hard concepts to grasp?

On the basis of "making %h(t up".

I will say again, the text is clear. The two statements are independent of each other. In a text requiring precise language and definitions (a rule book), it is illogical to me, to put an order or sequence on the events without the appropriate language indiciating that such order exists.

It would be similar to me saying that in order to hit a golf ball, you have to have both a ball and a club. The order in which you obtain these two things is irrelevant, but you must have both in order to do it. Likewise, for end of the run enforcement on RTP, you must have both of those conditions met but the order in which they occur is irrelevant.

Interpreters make mistakes. At least in Illinois they sometimes do.

And in college, the rule is virtually the same and it is interpreted as I interpret it.

EXACTLY! In order for K to legally possess a free kick, the ball must be grounded and have gone 10 yards. Does the order matter? Nope!