Nfhs 8-2-4

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Why? Doesn't 10-5-1f deal with only the opponent of the scoring team? (I still don't have my 09 books with me). How does that apply to the situation where the scoring team has committed during the down a foul that is enforced as dead ball?
KW, I think by ruling according to what you think was intended, you are treading on the same dangerous ground ajmc treads with his whole "common sense" justification for some of his interps.

There is no doubt the spirit and intent of the rule while the wording may be somewhat inaccurate. Part 1 of the Case Book "Comments on the 2009 Revisions" is very clear that unsportsmanlike fouls occurring during a touchdown scoring play give the scoring team the option of enforcement on the try or kickoff.

[Mike L]

Yes, gives the scoring team the option of enforcement when B fouls. Not when A fouls, which is what happened in the OP.

10-5-1f does you no good, it simply states there are now special enforcement options for the offended team and you have to refer to 8-2-2, 8-2-3, & 8-2-4 to find out what those are. 2 & 3 refer to fouls by the team being scored upon. So they are out. 4 refers to a foul committed between the score and the next RFP. So, an USC foul committed by A during the run in is still in that never-never land of last year and has to be enforced on the try.

You can try to argue "spirit and intent" all you want, but when the rule in plain English states something completely different than that "spirit and intent", you are now treading on some pretty dangerous ground.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Yes, gives the scoring team the option of enforcement when B fouls. Not when A fouls, which is what happened in the OP.

10-5-1f does you no good, it simply states there are now special enforcement options for the offended team and you have to refer to 8-2-2, 8-2-3, & 8-2-4 to find out what those are. 2 & 3 refer to fouls by the team being scored upon. So they are out. 4 refers to a foul committed between the score and the next RFP. So, an USC foul committed by A during the run in is still in that never-never land of last year and has to be enforced on the try.

You can try to argue "spirit and intent" all you want, but when the rule in plain English states something completely different than that "spirit and intent", you are now treading on some pretty dangerous ground.

Let me amend my last post. First, the unsportsmanlike was committed by the scoring team and 8-2-4 does say "...after a touchdown scoring play..." However, if you read "Comments on the 2009 Revisions" in the Case Book it plainly states "...fouls that occur during or after a touchdown scoring play" and it goes on to say the options "in most situations" are for the scoring team.

This is something that should be channeled through your interpreter.

[Mike L]

I don't understand. Are you trying to use a comment entitled "options for teams that score but were fouled" as a "spirit and intent of the rule" to change enforcement options for a team that scored and fouled?

The only thing I would need from my interpreter is some confirmation they want us to ignore
"committed" and change it to "committed during or enforced after the score" so that B will get an option of A USC's during the score.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by Mike L

I don't understand. Are you trying to use a comment entitled "options for teams that score but were fouled" as a "spirit and intent of the rule" to change enforcement options for a team that scored and fouled?

The only thing I would need from my interpreter is some confirmation they want us to ignore
"committed" and change it to "committed during or enforced after the score" so that B will get an option of A USC's during the score.

Usually the Comments give you the spirit and intent and the rule itself states it. It appears the Comments address all situations during a touchdown-scoring play but the rule appears to ignore a foul by A during a touchdown-scoring play that calls for enforcement from the succeeding spot. In other words I think the rule was not written correctly and it needs to be confirmed either way.

My job is to enforce the rules as written but having a thorough understanding helps me better perform that duty.

Consider the rule as written does not allow B to have a choice of enforcement spots regardless of what Redding says. I do believe it was an oversight when 8-2-4 was written but that is what I will enforce until NFHS says otherwise.