Redding and the Bin Book (from Referee) agree that the USC can now be applied on the kickoff.

Where does the rule book say that?

I trust those sources over any other. That's how they will be enforced (correctly, IMO) in my games. And it also matches the spirit of the rule change, as well.

The rule book is frequently wrong or incomplete. That said, since I am presenting on various topics (including this one) at an association meeting tomorrow night I've emailed the state office for how we're to enforce this. I know how I see it, but I'd rather see consistency than see my viewpoint be the correct one.

Not to start a fight but how can the rule book be wrong?

It can contradict itself (say one thing in one place and something different in another) or can be incomplete. This is one place I think it's incomplete.

(Jim Evans has frequently cited over 200 errors in the official rules of baseball. You can't put every scenario in the book and have everything covered or consistent. It's not a book written by lawyers for lawyers.)

The enforcement of an USC foul by A during a score is as you said - succeeding spot. I do think they meant to give the same choice here as they gave in 8-2-4 -- or they bridged this part of the enforcement to the succeeding spot, which yields the choice given in 8-2-4 -- they just neglected to write the rule properly or rewrite another rule to make this happen.

I don't think that the Redding book and the Bin Book would get this wrong on purpose, either.

Step away and look at spirit and intent of the change. Why would this *not* fit?

That said, I'm more than willing to abide by the state office and how they decide. The message we'd been given all along is that enforcement is easy. The only time we have to apply on the try is at the end of the game and only under certain circumstances.

The intent of these rule changes was to prevent B from getting in a cheap shot and only having to pay a penalty of a yard and a half.

8-2-2 and 8-2-3 refer to the opponent of the scoring team and 8-2-4 talks about fouls occurring AFTER the score and 10-4-5 says the basic spot is the succeeding spot for USC fouls, which is what A did before he scored. The succeeding spot is the try.

You say you think they meant to give the same choice but it's clear that the rules say what should happen.

This thread is the first I even considered that maybe it should be applied on the try. The way the change was presented was not this way at all, not where I am.

The bin book and Redding are quite specific -- the bin is: "Live ball fouls treated as dead ball fouls that occur during a touchdown" with the result being "Penalty Enforced on the Try or the Succeeding Kickoff".

I wouldn't be so confident that what's written is what is/was meant. Those who write these books are closer to the NFHS Rules Committee than I (and probably you) are or will be.

This whole "live ball USC foul is enforced as a dead ball foul" is something that has crept into the enforcement of penalties philosophy when it actually is not there. All you really have is "The basic spot is the succeeding spot for an USC foul". The succeeding spot is the try in this situation despite what Bin or Reddings says. You can try to say giving B the choice is what the rule meant to do, but it's not what it says. Intent of the rule is nice to go by, but it's really hard to do that when the rules are clear in what they say. The only thing about the new 8-2 rules that apply to A says the foul has to be committed after the score and before the ready. They say nothing about A fouls committed during the score and definitely say nothing about live ball fouls treated with dead ball enforcement.
Taunting on the way in, on the try only.
Celebration after, B gets a choice.

So how many supplemental books do we have to buy to figure out which rules mean what they say and which rules don't?

We had a 14-page war over whether a player jumping from out-of-bounds is considered in-bounds, out-of-bounds or something in between. A strict interpretation of the rulebook says in-bounds. An honest interpretation of the spirit says out-of-bounds. The official interpretation is apparently something in between.

Here, we've got a rule that says one thing and an interpretation that says something different. If they want a rule to mean something, make the rule say that. All it has to say is "If during or after a touchdown-scoring play..." and it'd be fine.

Or maybe I'm just bitter because I missed a question on the (open book) exam because I was too literal in answering.

So glad I missed that thread. I've read the play, would blow it out of bounds, and nobody, nobody would argue. I'd like to be right, of course, but sometimes, it's just easier to be wrong. :D

Casebook 8.2.2.B: On the last timed down of the second period, Team A (a) scores a field goal or (b) scores a touchdown. In both cases, the opponents of the scoring team commit a live ball foul. RULING: In (a) the offended team has the option to keep the score, with the penalty assessed on the second half kickoff as this is the succeeding spot. In (b) the offended team has the option to keep the score, with the penalty assessment on either the try or on the second half kickoff as this would be the subsequent kickoff.

Doesn't say anything about what type of live-ball foul occurs.

This would be on point if A had committed a nonplayer or USC foul before the TD. :D

Careful Rich, you'd be going against Redding then. :D

Right.... B threw the (possibly) illegal low block. Count the TD and go back 10 on the convert or KO.