Do you think that your earlier post gains credibility by your now agreeing with it? :p

USC Foul by A on Scoring Play
 

I am a big fan of Redding's Guide, and I think the rules dictate that an USC live ball foul by A can only be assessed on the try or subsequent kickoff. But I do think Rule 8-2-4 needs rewording. Here is my reasoning...

1. In 2-16-2, dead ball, live ball, and unsportsmanlike fouls are defined:
a. dead ball- a foul that occurs after a down has ended and before the next ball is snapped or free kicked.
d. live ball- a foul that occurs during a down.
f. unsportsmanlike- a noncontact foul while the ball is dead or during the down which is not illegal participation and does not influence the play in progress.

The play mentioned is a live ball unsportsmanlike penalty (not a deadball unsportsmanlike penalty).

2. In 10-4-5, the rule book states the basic spot is the succeeding spot for unsportsmanlike fouls, dead ball fouls, nonplayer fouls and touchbacks.

No where in the rule book or the case book can I find a statement similar to: 'unsportsmanlike are live ball fouls treated as dead ball fouls.' Rule 10-4-5 simply states that both live ball unsportsmanlike fouls and dead ball fouls are enforced at the succeeding spot. Many officials including writers of supplemental books have reworded the rules and consider their rewording as the rules.

3. In 8-2-4, the rule states that if after a touchdown scoring play and prior to the initial ready for play signal for the try, if any team commits a foul for which the basic spot is the succeeding spot, the offended team may have the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot or the subsequent kickoff.

Reading the rules, I can see why some officials think that by rule we should not allow Team B the option of penalizing on the kickoff. The unsportsmanlike foul did occur before the touchdown scoring play. But the queer wording of 8-2-4: 'if any team commits a foul for which the basic spot is the succeeding spot' makes me firmly resolved that the Rule writers want us to allow live ball unsportsmanlike fouls by A to be included in 8-2-4. All dead ball fouls are penalized from the succeeding spot, so why would they need that additional verbage if we are to only allow dead ball fouls to carry over? Wouldn't the first statement suffice?

I really think that 8-2-4 should be reworded to make it clear that 8-2-4 encompasses live ball unsportsmanlike fouls. But I am certain that the intent of the rule (which is its infancy stage) is meant to incorporate live ball nonplayer and unsportsmanlike fouls.

True only if you choose to ignore the wording that immediately proceeds it. "After a TD play, before the ready....commits a foul enforced at succeeding spot".

The rule gives the time frame for when the foul has to be committed, not just when it is supposed to be enforced. I just have a lot of trouble altering a clear wording of a rule to fit what I think the rulesmakers wanted.
I agree the rule needs to be cleaned up, Lord knows that happens all the time with the NFHS, but I think we are stuck with what the rule says for now.

The reason they say nothing about A fouls committed during the score is quite simple. What team in their right mind would say, "OK let the score stand and we'll penalize them on the try." Of course not. Any live ball penalty against a scoring team would be accepted. Common sense prevails with the rule change this year allowing the dead ball to be on the KO, since it was dead B had no choice other the the subsequent spot. If a team has a good kicker, B might want it on the kickoff and now they have the choice.

Heh. OK, so he's wrong once and right once. :D

The MD State interpreter told us that the USC during the score would have the option of carrying over if that hepls clarify what they wanted it to say. It also clearly states the same thing in the Referee Football Preseason Guide on page 13.

Then the rule should have been written that way. If they want it to say that then fix the rule next year. These interpretations in contradiction to the written rule is why there are different enforcements every game. Unless someone stumbled into this forum they would not know this "interpretation". With instant and mass communication via email available today, such rule interpretations by the Federation should instantly be forwarded to every football official via their state office.

But I agree with him so he's right in that situation and wrong in this one. :eek:

Hopefully this gets fixed and clarified well before they ever remove the "accidental appeal" caseplay from the NFHS baseball casebook.

Of course now that I'm in Texas, I really couldn't care one way or another when it comes to NFHS football. Have fun! :D

Only proving that even a state interpreter and the preseason guide can take what is clearly stated and change it to what they think it means. Doesn't make them right. But if you are in MD, you're stuck with it. Fortunately I'm not in MD and can stick with what the rule actually says.

Well no duh it says nothing about A live ball fouls during the score. And amazingly, there seems to be several efforts to make the USC that happens during the score (which is also a live ball foul that just happens to have succeeding spot enforcement) into something that we should enforce anyway as occuring between the score and the ready despite the rule states. Common sense has nothing to do with it. The rule is clear, it's just some people seem to have some preconceived notion of what it should have said.

In Illinois the IHSA has clarified this rule on it's website.

8/12 Clarification on new rule 8-2-4

Boys Football

There has been some confusion with the penalty enforcement for new rule 8-2-4 when it relates to an unsportsmanlike act committed by the offense during a scoring play.

We basically have two situations; (a) if the offense commits an unsportsmanlike act prior to the ball crossing the goal line, like taunting on the 3 yd line; (b) committing an excessive celebration act after the ball crosses the goal line. In (a), rule 8-2-4 would not be able to be applied since the act occurred prior to crossing the goal line and the penalty would be assessed on the try. In (b), the act occurred after the ball crossed the goal line and rule 8-2-4 would be able to be applied and there would be a choice for the spot of enforcement of either the try or the subsequent kickoff.

The voice of reason! ;)

In the following Case Book Play a coach of the scoring team is on the field during the touchdown run and Ruling (b) states that enforcement will be from the try.

10.5.3 SITUATION B: Third down and 12 on A’s 40-yard line. A1 drops back to throw a pass. The pass is completed to A2 who scores on the run following the reception. During the down, (a) A3 holds B1 on A’s 37-yard line or (b) A’s coach is observed standing inbounds on B’s 20-yard line. RULING: (a) If B accepts the penalty for holding by A3, the score is nullified and following enforcement it will be A’s ball, third down and 25 to go on A’s 27. In (b), the score stands. Following enforcement the try will be from A’s 18-yard line. (9-2-1c, 9-8-1k, 10-5-3)

This is a "live ball foul" by the scoring team enforced from the Succeeding Spot which is the Try

Keep an eye out for a possible change to this interpretation.

This is my whole point in this thread. The NFHS want to change a rule, they apparently communicate this to the Redding/Bin Book people, then they don't. Some states get the message, some don't, just horribly implemented.

And sometimes the person writing for Redding/Bin Book/Case Book/whatever THINK that they are communicating an idea but a few words changed here or there or a horribly written sentence is all that's needed to change something from one idea to another. Like Mark Twain said, it's just one little word that changes lightning to the lightning bug.