Right Enforcement?

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by gtwbam

However B's options for enforcement on the unsportsmanship conduct by A will apply to both the try and succeeding kickoff as well

The options given to B on the unsportsmanlike conduct penalty by A is not determined whether the player crossed the goal line, its determined by when it occurred, whether it was before or after the ready-for-play whistle for the try. In this case its before.

That's wrong. The USC before the score is the succeeding spot only. Bullycon has it right. A can bridge the BBW to the KO or have it on the try, B can only take A's USC on the try only.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kdf5

That's wrong. The USC before the score is the succeeding spot only. Bullycon has it right. A can bridge the BBW to the KO or have it on the try, B can only take A's USC on the try only.

Nobody disagrees about the penalty for BBW.

True, the USC by A happened during the down. But since it is treated as a dead-ball foul, 8-2-4 applies to it (Bullycon quoted the rule above). Thus, B has the option to enforce the penalty on the KO. Hence, the Reddings ruling also quoted.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Nobody disagrees about the penalty for BBW.

True, the USC by A happened during the down. But since it is treated as a dead-ball foul, 8-2-4 applies to it (Bullycon quoted the rule above). Thus, B has the option to enforce the penalty on the KO. Hence, the Reddings ruling also quoted.

The rule says: If AFTER a TD scoring play, the foul is committed. This foul occurred before the TD. Sorry, but Redding and the bin book are wrong in this one. There are no rules that allow the USC to bridge to the KO.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by kdf5

The rule says: If AFTER a TD scoring play, the foul is committed. This foul occurred before the TD. Sorry, but Redding and the bin book are wrong in this one. There are no rules that allow the USC to bridge to the KO.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by kdf5

That's wrong. The USC before the score is the succeeding spot only. Bullycon has it right. A can bridge the BBW to the KO or have it on the try, B can only take A's USC on the try only.

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

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by kdf5

Where does the rule book say that?

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.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by kdf5

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.

[kdf5]

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.

[Bullycon]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Bullycon

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.

[VALJ]

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.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

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.

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