Complete Pass, Tack on RTP?
 

NFHS:

THird and 10 for team A at its own 20. Team A completes a pass to the 50 yard line. Team B is guilty of roughing the passer. Do you tack on the yardage?

This is a loose ball play so usually the answer is no tack on; the spot of enforcement is the previous spot (A20) so A would have to decline the penalty to keep the play to the 50. I'll go look it up in the book, but I thought I'd also ask here.

Roughing the Passer is one of the exceptions... Roughing the passer is always enforced from the the end of the last run when the last run ends beyond the neutral zone. So in other words...yes...1st and 10 at the B 35.

This enforcement is also one of those reasons its really nice to remember to bag fumbles beyond the LOS.

A1's pass is complete to A80 who fumbles the ball at the 50. B recovers the ball at the 45 and is downed immediately. B99 is called for roughing the passer on the play. Enforcement is from the end of the last run which ended at the 50. So 1st and 10 at the 35.

The rule is for roughing the passer the enforcement spot is the end of the last run when the run ends beyond the neutral zone and there has been no change of possession.

The case you presented has a changed of possession. So enforcement from previous spot.

ppaltice is correct.

Interesting...

i was told by the MO state interpreter at a clinic a couple of years ago that the COP part of RTP refers to when the COP occurs before there is a run beyond the NZ by team A. In other words if Team A does not have a run beyond the NZ then it would be previous spot enforcement. I know this because the play I posted is exactly what happened on the field, and what you say is exactly how we enforced it, but the clinician and interpreter told us we were wrong.

End-of-run enforcement applies, as the rule plainly says, when the "last run ends beyond the neutral zone AND there has been no change of team possession." By that rule, we should use previous spot enforcement if EITHER (a) the last run ended in or behind the NZ OR (b) there is a change of possession. Since your play involves a COP, it should be previous spot enforcement.

Perhaps your experts were thinking of this case play:

The difference here is that this play involves no COP: hence end-of-run enforcement. The rule does not mention that enforcement depends on where a COP occurs -- your experts seem to have made that up. Given the details of your play, I still conclude that you got the enforcement correct, your experts' opinions notwithstanding.

The rule also seems fair to me: if the offense completes the pass despite RTP and doesn't turn the ball over, end-of-run enforcement provides additional disincentive for RTP; if, however, they complete the pass only to turn it over, take that failure into account and enforce from the previous spot.

The rule is pretty clear:

2 situations where the enforcement is from the end of the run:

1- "when last run ends beyond the neutral zone."
2- "and there has been no change of team possession."

"or otherwise 15 yards and first down from previous spot."

That's not correct. There's ONE situation where enforcement is from the end of the run, namely the situation that includes BOTH of your (1) and (2).

I think the problem there is with interpreting "has been". Some of you seem to think it refers to the entire down, while others think it refers to the time before there was a run that ended beyond the neutral zone. Given the context, I think the latter -- that if CoP occurred following a run that ended beyond the NZ, the spot is that of the end of that run. Otherwise it seems silly -- why would a team lose an advantageous enforcement spot just because following all that, a turnover occurred?

Robert

How could A have a run beyond the NZ after they turn the ball over to B?

Who said it had to be A's run? And who said it couldn't be after 2 CoP?

We're talking about roughing the passer. Only A can have a legal passer who might be roughed. Of course it has to be A's run.

The number of COPs (greater than 0) is irrelevant to enforcement. That is, if you've got at least one, it's previous spot.

The interpretative confusion you seem to think exists is nonsensical.

How does that follow? The passage quoted in the rules only specifies a spot from which enforcement may be measured following RTP. It says nothing about whose run has to have ended. The only way you know this is from the provision about CoP. If you know no change of possession occurred before the end of the run, then you know it had to have been a run by A.

Then why do we have one interpret'n cited by Reffing Rev and another by you? And I think the one that was referred to by Reffing Rev, whether he himself believes it or not, is the correct one. The rules makers wanted the non-offending team to be able to benefit in terms of enforcement spot by a completed pass by their own team and a run beyond the previous spot, and not to lose that benefit based on subsequent loss of ball. The only loss of incentive is by the offending team, for whom once the ball is possessed by A beyond the previous spot, there is no benefit for a turnover greater than for a tackle.

Suppose it were an "ordinary" foul by the defense such as a personal foul or illegal use of hands on a running play. The enforcement would be from the end of the run. Why would the penalty for RTP be any less advantageous? The foul occurs while the ball is loose, so the rules makers wanted to allow an equivalent sort of advantage by allowing the non-fouling team to complete the pass and advance before the penalty is considered. Loss of the ball subsequent to such an advance wouldn't affect the enforcement spot any more than it would subsequent to a run during which a foul by the defense occurred.

Robert

I agree with the group about what the rule says,

It was July 2005 in Columbia MO, I've moved twice since then and had some sacramental wine, but I remember the interpreter explaining something like, "The purpose of the special enforcement is to allow the offense to keep any yardage they gain by completing a pass when there is roughing. To take away that yardage as a result of a subsequent turnover violates the intent of the rule."

I agree with mbyron about the letter of the law, but I am sympathetic with the interpreter's spirit of the law.

Robert, the language of the rule is not as complicated as you make it out to be.

Read it again, it is very straight forward.

There are two conditions that must be met in order for there to be enforcement from the end of the last run. The run must end beyond the neutral zone AND there must not have been a change of team possession.

BOTH of these conditions must be met. If there has been a change of team possession, regardless of the number of changes in team possession or whom is in possession of the ball at the end of the down, then BOTH conditions have not been met.

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!

Mike, that is a perfect example.

The only way this is going to be decided is when they eventually rewrite it they say whether it's a change or a clarif'n.

Disagree, since it's clear to all but one now.

I concur with mbryon. 'and no change of possession' is clear.

That part is clear. The words you left out, "has been" are what make it unclear. See the "PKS" (PSK) conditions thread for how the rule could have been written in a way that would have made this clear if they meant what you think they meant.

Robert