Nfhs 8-2-4
 

Having a discussion on the NFHS web site about this play and the enforcement. Would like some other opinions.

"A" is running for a score and at the 5 yard line, he turns and holds the ball taunting "B". Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

The Redding Study Guide says and I agree. That with the new rule change (8-2-4) that the defense has the option of having this enforced on the try or the succeeding kick off. Even though this foul occurred during a live ball, it is treated as a dead ball foul and should fall under rule 8-2-4.

Bring it on!

Nothing to "bring on" as The Redding Study Guide is correct.

Don't understand the problem.

It is unsportsmanlike during a live ball. ALL unsportsmanlike conduct fouls are enforced from the succeeding spot (10-5-1f) which in this case of special enforcement can be either the spot of the try for a point or the kickoff.

Is the rule that says the foul must be committed sometime between the score and the next RFP? (sorry, I don't have my 09 books here with me). If that's the case, then how can you say the USC for taunting was committed after the score?
As I stated on another board, I believe the Redding ruling is what was intended, but that's not the way the rule was actually published.

Technically, you are correct as 8-2-4 should have said, If during or after a touchdown-scoring play...
That is what it was intended to say and It is highly likey this little snafu will be corrected in the 2010 rule book. Many like myself, Ed and the Redding guid feel it is sufficient for this season having 10-5-1f in place.

Remember it took three years to get all the wording correct after PSK was added.

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.

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.

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.

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?

I totally agree!
But I read case book play 10.5.3 situation B
"A1 drops back to throw a pass. The pass is completed to A2 who scores on the run following the reception. During the down (b)A's coach is observed standing inbounds on B's 20 yard line. Ruling (b) the score stand. Following enforcement the try will be from A's 18 yard line."
nothing about options.

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.