Block in the Back

[red]

Team A has the ball on their own 25 yard line, its 2nd and 7. A1 hands to A2 who runs to A's 45. A2 blocks B2 in the back at A's 40 yard line.

10 yards from the spot of the foul; therefore, 3rd and 2 or is it 10 yards from the basic spot making it 1st and 10 from A's 35?

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by red

Team A has the ball on their own 25 yard line, its 2nd and 7. A1 hands to A2 who runs to A's 45. A2 blocks B2 in the back at A's 40 yard line.

10 yards from the spot of the foul; therefore, 3rd and 2 or is it 10 yards from the basic spot making it 1st and 10 from A's 35?

Penalize under all-but-one, so enforce the foul from the A40 (spot of foul) not the A45 (basic spot). That would result in 3/2 from the A30.

[Bullycon]

2nd and 2 from the A30. Block in the back does not include a loss of down.

On a side note, I'm assuming A2 blocking in the back was a typo, but can A2 be penalized for a block in the back if he's the ball carrier?

[red]

I do have a typo

A3 blocks in the back

[red]

[QUOTE=Bullycon;623832]2nd and 2 from the A30. Block in the back does not include a loss of down.



Why would A gain 5 yards when they had the penalty?

[waltjp]

It's semantics. If Team A had not fouled they would have 1/10 from their 45. The penalty moves the ball back to A's 30 - or a 15 yard loss.

[Rich]

[QUOTE=red;623864]

Originally Posted by Bullycon

2nd and 2 from the A30. Block in the back does not include a loss of down.



Why would A gain 5 yards when they had the penalty?

I think a key part of getting a firm grasp of the all-but-one is understanding the philosophy behind this enforcement.

The philosophy of penalizing A in the all-but-one is that they are entitled to the yardage they get up to the foul, with the penalty enforced after that's considered.

So the foul is at the 40, go back 10 from there. It's behind the end of the run -- A benefited 5 yards more from the foul so they don't get it.

If the foul was at the 50, well, they're not entitled to the yardage they never got on the play, so we'll penalize 10 from the end of the run, which is the 45 (back to the 35).

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by red

Team A has the ball on their own 25 yard line, its 2nd and 7. A1 hands to A2 who runs to A's 45. A2 blocks B2 in the back at A's 40 yard line.

10 yards from the spot of the foul; therefore, 3rd and 2 or is it 10 yards from the basic spot making it 1st and 10 from A's 35?

CANADIAN RULING:

Since yards were gained, loss of 10/15* from Point Ball Held, 1D/10.

* = 10 for illegal block, 15 for block from the rear

[waltjp]

The confusing part in this enforcement is the replay of the down because A did not make the line to gain after the penalty was administered. In essence, what was 2nd and 7 is not 2nd and 2.

Take the same situation, 2nd and 7 from A's 25. The line to gain is A's 32 yard line. A2 runs to midfield. A3 is flagged for a block in the back at A's 45. The 10-yard penalty would move the ball back to A's 35. The result would be a first down for A from their 35.

Nobody would view this as Team A gaining yardage because of a foul.

[kdf5]

[QUOTE=red;623864]

Originally Posted by Bullycon

2nd and 2 from the A30. Block in the back does not include a loss of down.



Why would A gain 5 yards when they had the penalty?

RichMSN got it right. A is entitled to what they gained legally. All yardage gained after the runner passed the spot of the foul (the A-45) is ill gotten gain and will be penalized from the 45. That, like he said is the nutshell of the ABO.

[Robert Goodman]

[QUOTE=RichMSN;623872]

Originally Posted by red

I think a key part of getting a firm grasp of the all-but-one is understanding the philosophy behind this enforcement.

The philosophy of the "1" in 3-and-1 is based on a longstanding assumption and compromise. That is, they knew the assumption was only somewhat valid, but traded off the degree of invalidity for ease of administration. And it was in most cases better than what preceded it.

The assumption is that the spot of the foul is where the live ball was or would've gotten to. You held the would-be tackler, the runner was or would've gotten to that point without the assistance of any illegality. But it's only an approximation. Sometimes the foul occurs at a spot the ball is already downfield from, although usually not far (assuming it's not unnecessary roughness). Sometimes the foul just kept the fouled player from advancing and tackling a runner who was well behind the spot of the foul, who then completes a run and moves the basic spot beyond the spot of the foul. (I won't get into pass play enforcement which became arguably even a worse gyp in that case starting almost 40 yrs. ago.)

Canadian football has a "point ball held" spot. However, that does require determining the spot of the ball at the same time as a foul that might've been some distance away. The worse the disparity produced by the "1" of 3-and-1 enforcement, the greater the imprecision in point ball held enforcement.

Spots in rugby for enforcement of live ball fouls are generally spot-of-foul and not the equivalent of any of the other North American football enforcement spots. This can produce some strangeness too, chiefly related to lateral placement (when someone is offside far from where the ball is) and non-tactical fouls (like punching someone far away from where the ball is). IIRC, however, unsporting conduct by a coach on the sideline is theoretically penalized from where the ball in play was at that moment.

The lack of "tacked on" enforcements in rugby does noticeably increase the incentive by the defense to foul tactically, and seems to lead to many referees giving what seems IMO an extravagant amount of "advantage play" to compensate.

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The philosophy of the "1" in 3-and-1 is based on a longstanding assumption and compromise. That is, they knew the assumption was only somewhat valid, but traded off the degree of invalidity for ease of administration. And it was in most cases better than what preceded it.

The assumption is that the spot of the foul is where the live ball was or would've gotten to. You held the would-be tackler, the runner was or would've gotten to that point without the assistance of any illegality. But it's only an approximation. Sometimes the foul occurs at a spot the ball is already downfield from, although usually not far (assuming it's not unnecessary roughness). Sometimes the foul just kept the fouled player from advancing and tackling a runner who was well behind the spot of the foul, who then completes a run and moves the basic spot beyond the spot of the foul. (I won't get into pass play enforcement which became arguably even a worse gyp in that case starting almost 40 yrs. ago.)

Canadian football has a "point ball held" spot. However, that does require determining the spot of the ball at the same time as a foul that might've been some distance away. The worse the disparity produced by the "1" of 3-and-1 enforcement, the greater the imprecision in point ball held enforcement.

Spots in rugby for enforcement of live ball fouls are generally spot-of-foul and not the equivalent of any of the other North American football enforcement spots. This can produce some strangeness too, chiefly related to lateral placement (when someone is offside far from where the ball is) and non-tactical fouls (like punching someone far away from where the ball is). IIRC, however, unsporting conduct by a coach on the sideline is theoretically penalized from where the ball in play was at that moment.

The lack of "tacked on" enforcements in rugby does noticeably increase the incentive by the defense to foul tactically, and seems to lead to many referees giving what seems IMO an extravagant amount of "advantage play" to compensate.

Robert

Since PF only matters is the rarest of cases, officials are trained to land their flag at PBH. If they're off, it is rarely by much. And all that matters is if PBH was beyond the LTG at the time of the foul. In cases where the calling official is far form PBH, they are trained see the foul, then look for the ball and determine it's spot, all the while throwing the flag.

I can't recall the last time that I was on a game where the PBH identified was incorrect and where the LTG was threatened.

Fouls where PBH < LTG are enforced from PLS.
Fouls where PBH >= LTG are enforced from PBH.

It's kinda like a previous discussion whereby it was pointed out that Canadian Umpires often do rule on goal line situations. Some officials claimed that the U did not get a good look at fouls such as holding, blocks outside of teh FBZ, etc. But when you're trained from the get-go to be able to see both fouls and progress near the GL, you can do it!

The worst case I remember grabbing the wrong spot was by 8 yards, and that was 6 years ago.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

In cases where the calling official is far form PBH, they are trained see the foul, then look for the ball and determine it's spot, all the while throwing the flag.

But the ball is moving while they're looking for it. (Hey, think how much better defense would be if the players could instantly find the ball!) I do, however, think PBH enforcement is more equitable than 3-and-1 in most cases, just more difficult. Penalties of any kind are never perfect remedies.

There was a long discussion here recently about UR far behind the ball by a team scoring a touchdown. Was the ball dead already? The farther the spot was behind the ball, the harder it was to tell and the more consequential under USAn rules.

In rugby, there is a strong tendency of the referee to not hear insults hurled at him until the ball becomes dead, at which time he hears their distant echoes, even though unsporting conduct can theoretically be a live ball infraction.

Robert