Right Enforcement?

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[Mike L]

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.

[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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by 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.

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

[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.

[ppaltice]

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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

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.

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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

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