Nfhs 8-2-4

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by CWIG

Mike:

You are correct that this situation will be ultimately left to our esteemed interpreter to decide. But, for my two cents worth, I believe we can hang our hat on two specific comments. The first is in the actual rule itself where it states "either team commits any foul for which the basic spot is the succeeding spot". However the committee worded the comments previous to that, we know that the USP on the TD play will have succeeding spot enforcement. The second comment is in the case book part 1 which states " Three current rules were refined and a new article created regarding penalty enforcement for dead-ball, non-player, or unsportsmanlike fouls that occur during or after a touchdown scoring play." I believe the committee is telling us they intend for this new article to also cover fouls during a TD scoring play, as long as there is succeeding spot enforcement. Again, my interpretation, but I believe this is supported by the books.

Ok, let's assume they are talking specifically about A USC's that occur during the down in the comments of the case book. Is there any acutally case book play that backs it up? Or are we going with a vague/non-specific comment?And when the case book is in direct opposition to the actual printed rule, which one wins, the casebook or the rulebook? Look, I know what they most likely intended to do, but clearly the actual wording of the rule in the book is quite different than that intention.
So do we go with what they actually said or what we think they maybe intended?

[CWIG]

Originally Posted by Mike L

Ok, let's assume they are talking specifically about A USC's that occur during the down in the comments of the case book. Is there any acutally case book play that backs it up? Or are we going with a vague/non-specific comment?And when the case book is in direct opposition to the actual printed rule, which one wins, the casebook or the rulebook? Look, I know what they most likely intended to do, but clearly the actual wording of the rule in the book is quite different than that intention.
So do we go with what they actually said or what we think they maybe intended?

I did not have any doubts as to the rule's intentions, nor did I think it was vague as stated....until I read the case play referred to by KFO9494. You have a very valid point, KFO, this play would seem to contradict what we have been interpreting is the committee's intentions. At the same time, there is a mistake in the rules reference of this case play (should reference rule 9-8-1i, and not 9-8-1k). Rule 9-8-1k refers to being outside the box but not on the field. So, is the committee totally confused, or just slightly incorrect in their rule's reference? I don't know. Again, I will defer to our association interpreter unless we hear from a higher source. And if I have any say, it will be to lean toward B's choice if A has an USP on a TD.