Rules RE: Declined Penalties
 

SCENARIO: Team A is on offense on the 8 yard line. Play ensues and Team A makes a touchdown. Penalty flags fly. There are two penalties against Team A. Team B declines both penalties, the referee signals each penalty followed by Team B’s decision to decline. The game announcer in the press box duly reports the activity and adds, “…Team B declines both penalties, so the touchdown is good.”

QUESTION: What’s the proper ruling?

Scott

Coach B is guilty of stupidity.

Or more likely...NEVER LISTEN TO ANNOUNCERS.

Chances are there were not 2 declined penalties against A when A scores, the announcer might have missed something, or the R might have signalled incorrectly. But if B declines both penalties against A then touchdown stands.

There is no ruling, partner. If team B declines the penalties, then that's their option.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Touchdown.

Declining a penalty means that your choice has been that the result of the play is more beneficial to you than the application of the penalty.

Since there are no cases in Canadian ball where B benefits from declining two A penalties where A scored a TD, I do wonder if there was a miscommunication somewhere along the line.

Hmmm.....

The only way that I can see there not being a touchdown is that if both fouls were pre-snap fouls, and the timing of the fouls was such that the officials didn't have time to kill the play prior to the snap, and decided to not do anything about it until after the snap, but still opted to give B the choice of applying at the PLS, without any benefit to A from the actual play.

Example: each WR mouths off to their respective sideline officials pre-snap and the official do not kill the play pre-snap. They flags come in during the play. These two fouls should be enforced at PLS, repeat the down. These are additive fouls, so B could decline the penalties, yet A would not be able to keep the TD, thereby "making" the announcer's statement incipiently incorrect.

Yes, an unlikely scenario, but this actually happened last night. The penalties called against Team A were "illegal procedure" (undefined) and "holding." The flags flew only after the play ended.

Yes, I know: NEVER listen to the announcer; what he/she says is irrelevant to the play of the game. The referee consulted with Team B's Captain, who made the decision to decline, then the referee signaled each call and each decline of penalty, but only at the point when the announcer said, "...so, the touchdown stands," and the officials signal TD, did Team B realized their stupidity.

The end result was that the referee went back to Team B and let them change their decision. Not only was the touchdown vacated, but Team A was assessed a yardage loss AND A LOSS OF DOWN.

Later, the game was called due to weather: lightening in the area that continued for a half-hour with another line of storms on the way. Despite the fact that it was a conference game, the score at initial cessation of play was allowed to stand.

My question is: Is it appropriate for Team B to be given a second opportunity to accept or decline the penalties?

Let me say I was not there and it would be unfair to comment on a collegaue's game without direct knowledge not that I doubt the poster's account.

It would/should never happen in a game that you allow declination of a penalty that gives the opposing team a touchdown. My statement in a situtation similar to this to the captain would be, "do you want to take the touchdown off the board?" and if I did not get a yes, I would confirm with a similar statement.

As officials we should never let the captain make the wrong choice.

As to whether they get a second chance, absolutely not, but if you have done your job correctly there would not be a need.

May I suggest a way to avoid any guilt feelings about allowing a team to make a second choice; When a team makes a decision that you consider insane (like declining an opponents foul to allow a score) presume that YOU gave a confusing (incomplete, mistaken, bad) explanation, and give yourself an opportunity to correct the situation by reviewing your explanation in a clearer fashion and allowing the captain to reconsider his choice in view of YOUR correction.

Should anyone object, simply advise them that your job is to provide complete and correct instructions and you will follow that objective for both teams, equally.

Ed Hickland That given, at what point does a decision stand -- in any situation, not just this example? Does a decision stand once the offical signals or is it open until the next play is run? How long does a team have to "change its mind?"

The Captain is entitled to make a ("a" as in one) decision once the options are presented to him properly and correctly. That's why it can be important to slow down an excited Captain and make sure he understands what's being explained to him and all the circumstances involved.

At the HS level you're dealing with someone 19 yrs old, or younger, and sometimes it takes a little effort to get the proper evel of attention to what you're explaining. If you're looking for, "one size that fits all", you're not going to find it on a HS football field.

It is incumbent upon the R to gather all the information and present the choice to the captain. Personally, I try to get the captain near his head coach so that if the decision is complex the coach will make the final decision. There is no time to change their mind once they make that decision.

Again, many penalty options are straightforward and I tell the captains and the head coach I'm going to just give them a wink when its obvious.

If the penalty requires some knowledge of the team's strength and preference then I will give the option. Example, 4/7 at K's 45, K8 runs into the kicker, the ball is downed at R's 3, a 5 yard foul and replay the down 4/2 at midfield or R with their backs against their goal line at their 3, 1/10. K will have to make the decision and once it is made that is what we go with.

I am not a believer in the "make the captain live with the stupid decision" camp. It will not endear you to anyone and, frankly, I find it bad for the game. That starts, with me, at the coin toss. I would never, never, NEVER allow someone to choose "kick" and saddle that team going on defense to start both halves unless after I explain it to them that's exactly what they wanted.

The latest NFHS version of the Bin Book talks about this and even suggests that in certain situations that the WH or wing should just get a decision from the coach. I completely agree with that. Last night we had 2 TDs with carryover penalties and since I was near the bench when reporting them, I just got the head coach's attention and verified he wanted the yardage on the kickoff.

We pulled them off with 6 minutes left and never finished. Regardless of whether it's a conference game, the rules clearly say that this decision is in the hands of the coaches and with their mutual decision we can end the game early. I don't care if there is a conference rule against that -- that's between the schools and the conference -- there's no NFHS (or state in my state) rule against it.

Hey, thanks, guys, for all the input.

Just one more request for clarification: regardless of how YOU would have handled the situation leading up to it and regardless of how stupid the decision was (remembering that at the time the coach on the sideline was on board with his team captain), once the decision was made and the official signaled it to the sidelines, do NFHS rules allow the team to then change their mind, and if they can, at what point is that oppotunity lost?

In fact, for clarity's sake, let's just take last night's scenario out of the picture. On ANY penalty call, at what point is a team's decision final?

What part of, "The Captain is entitled to make a ( "a" as in one) decision once the options are presented to him properly and correctly" are you having trouble with?

"Decision" signifies the end of the process, not the beginning or some mid-point, which is why the preliminary explanation of the options should be clear, concise, accurate and complete. Once the decision is made, our job is to implement it. There is no review, no further discussion, no ammendments.

What part of, "The Captain is entitled to make a ( "a" as in one) decision once the options are presented to him properly and correctly" are you having trouble with?

"Decision" signifies the end of the process, not the beginning or some mid-point, which is why the preliminary explanation of the options should be clear, concise, accurate, complete and perhaps most importantly understood. There is no time limit on assuring that the options are understood, but once the decision is made, our job is to implement it. There is no review, no further discussion, no ammendments.

Gee whiz -- sorry for being so thick, eh. I suppose the part that gave me pause was ajmc's "once the options are presented to him properly and correctly" and RichMSN's "I am not a believer in the 'make the captain live with the stupid decision' camp."

There isn't [B]A[B] rule per se. By the book, if the captain made his choice he's locked in. That doesn't mean the referee is.

The referee should be doing what is best using his best judgment and in the interests of the game in a situation such as this. Since none of us were present, we have no idea what was discussed between the referee and the captain. The referee could have given faulty or erroneous information and was correcting his error.

Sure there are two camps usually- 1) make 'em live with it, and 2) don't let them screw it up. Camp 2 will usually be more respected by their peers and the players, coaches, and game administration.

These aren't professional players, coaches, nor officials. While all should strive to do their best, the level of expectation of their performances should not reach that of a professional.

Yup. I'm in camp 2.

Matter of fact, my captain's meetings at halftime are probably the least wordy. I know who has the option and I usually point at the captain and ask "Receive?" When he nods, I'll point at the other captain and say "Which goal will you defend?"

When one captain defers at the toss, I'll point at the other captain and say "Receive?"

When the choice is obvious, I don't even bother with the captain. I worked a wing in a youth game last night and watched a painful 90 second conversation regarding OPI. I wanted to scream, "Of COURSE they want it! It carries a LOD along with the 15 yards!" I would've had the ball in play and we would've run a play or 2 during that whole scene.

I ask the coaches at the pregame meeting if the captains know what he wants. Most times, then, the coach will tell me they want to receive/defer and I note that in case the kid is confused at the toss.

I'm not out there to be a harda$$ or play gotcha games with the captains and coaches. I'm there to facilitate. If I give incomplete information and the captain chooses poorly I will allow the captain or coach to change his mind. When the other coach complains, I will take the blame for it and remind him that I'd do the same for his captain. And off we go.

Many times I am the most experienced person out there (including the coaches). Everyone has a lot on their minds. It's my job to make things run smoothly.

Rich, sounds like you've done some games up in my neck of the woods (West Bend, Kewaskum, Campbellsport)...2 times in the last couple years I've had to break the coin toss huddle to get the coaches attention because their captains insisted on "kicking the ball" to start the game after winning the toss so they could have the ball starting off the 2nd half....rather than deferring.

Ah, there it is! That's what I wanted to know. Thanks, HLin NC.

I do wonder, though, how many times officials find themselves in a circumstance like the one I described. No one seemed to realize (team B coach, team B players, or officiating team), until the inconsequential game announcer said it, that the actual outcome of declining the penalties would be the touchdown standing.

Now, another part RE: this scenario. The two penalties that vacate the TD are an undefined procedure call and holding. Given these two calls, what rationale could result in a loss of yardage AND loss of down?

There are a couple of contradictions in your question. If 2, or more live ball fouls are committed by the same team, the offended team gets to choose which one will be enforced. That is considered a multiple foul.

Any single accepted live ball foul will negate the score and provide for some yardage penalty. Only Illegal Forward Pass, Intentional grounding, Illegal forward handing, Illegal touching and Offensive Pass Interference include a loss of down provision. For other live ball foul enforcements, the down is repeated for accepted penalties.

When there is any combination of live ball fouls (multiple or not), with additional dead ball fouls, one live ball foul may be enforced plus any, and each, dead ball foul if there is more than one.

Dead ball fouls happen after a play has ended, so in esence the play has completed before the foul occured, so the succeeding down will be the "next" down.

Both Illegal procedure (which may have been caused by an illegal formation of some sort) or holding are live ball fouls, so only one of them should be applied (offended team's choice). Both call for loss of yardage penalty but neither and neither call for a penalty of loss of down.

ajmc wrote: That's what I thought. The officials seemed so flustered over the botched declination situation that maybe they rushed and didn't really think it through.

"Captain, if you take the result of the play, the other team gets a touchdown. If you accept the penalty for ______, then we will go back___yds. from this spot."

If the captain can't handle that explanation, then the coach needs to select another captain.

I will tell the captain, "You've got a tough choice, either take the result of the play which is the ball way up there OR you can accept the penalty for holding which will bring the ball back 10 yds from the flag and replay the down."

"We'll take them back."

"Good choice...you must be on the honor roll!" They always smile upon hearing that.

You guys have been great. Thanks. I just found my NFHS Rule Book. Apparently I knocked it off the arm of the sofa and it went underneath -- perfect for an armchair referee! But I found this at 10-1-1: "The captain's choice of options may not be revoked."

I don't mean this in a negative way, but this sounds like a referee that likes to hear himself talk.

Me to the captain: <crickets chirping>

Me (to the U): We'll take this back 10 from the flag.

For those in the "stick 'em with the decision they made originally camp," you must first account for the possibility that you (or the R) did not adequately explain the options to the Captain or coach and that they were making a proper, informed decision. I would consider myself, based on my experience, a top tier communicator, but I would never consider myself perfect. Thus, I want to make sure that the captain or coach is making a properly informed decision and virtually all the time, that means they will not make what most would consider an incorrect choice. So if they make such a choice, I accept some fault as maybe I didn't communicate the options clearly.

You won't last long around where I work in the stick it to 'em camp.

Excellent post Texas Aggie.

Amen.

I simply won't let the kids make a mistake during a game that I can (and should) prevent. I will go as far as looking in the coach's direction and giving a little "decline" signal and asking "is that what you want?"

I know some WHs cringe at this, but I don't really care. When I work the professional level....oh, wait, I see WHs in the NFL ask the coaches directly all the time. Bad example....or maybe it's a good example after all.