Right Enforcement?
 

Need help to see if we made the right enforcement in our game. We had A1 sweeping around right end behind pulling guard and tackle. B1 comes up and throws a low block on the the guard and tackle in an attempt to wipe out their blocking for A1. We have a flag down here at B45 yd line for the low block. Somehow A1 finds an opening and scampers down the sideline to the 5 yd line where he taunts the B players and then crosses the goal line. We have a flag down at the 5 yd line for unsportsmanlike taunting foul. How should this situation be handled?

You have a live ball and dead ball (like) foul being enforced.

Enforce the live ball foul first and put the USC foul in your pocket.

You have a score and you enforce a BBW foul and put the ball on the 1 1/2 yard line from the 3 yard line (half the distance to the goal). Then you enforce the USC Foul 15 yards putting the ball on the 16 1/2 yard line where the try will take place.

You do not give the option to the defense because they are not the scoring team from what I understand.

Peace

The score counts. (Rule 10-5-3.)

A has the option of enforcing B's foul on the try (moving the ball to the 1 1/2 yard line) or on the kickoff (moving the kick to the 50 yard line). (Rule 8-2-2.) I'd imagine they'd take the foul on the kickoff.

B can only enforce the unsportsmanlike conduct foul on the try. (Rule 10-4-5a.) Penalize 15 yards from the succeeding spot, which is B's 3-yard-line for the try.

If the unsportsmanlike conduct occurs after the player crosses the goal and the ball is dead, B can choose to enforce the penalty on the kickoff. (Rule 8-2-4.)

Indeed the score does count.

And A does have the option of enforcing B's foul on the try or the kickoff.

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.

Rule 8-2-4: "If after a touchdown-scoring play and prior to the initial ready-for-play signal for the try, either team commits any foul for which the basic spot is the succeeding spot, the offended team may have the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot or may choose to have the penalty enforced on the subsequent kickoff."

If the foul occurs before he crosses the goal line, then it is not after the play, it is during the play. Thus, B's only option is to enforce on the try.

Since all unsportmanlike penalties are treated as dead ball fouls, this would be the exception to the rule, and give B the option to have the penalty assessed either on the try or subsequent kickoff.

The NFHS "Bin Book" (High School Football Penalty Enforcements Made Easy) treats a live ball foul (treated as a dead ball) as a foul that can be applied on the kickoff, as well.

Redding says: "Penalties for nonplayer and unsportsmanlike fouls, by either team during a play that ends in a touchdown (8-2-4)" can be applied on the kickoff.

Are you all agreed that the order of presentation of the options is correct? A's choice of the live ball foul penalty, followed by B's choice of the live ball foul treated as dead ball foul penalty?

Also, might the BBW call have been incorrect (insufficient detail in the example)? Suppose the OL were pulling "flat" enough that the contact could be said to be in the neutral zone, and was in the FBZ and the ball was still in the FBZ, and B1 was a DL. ("B1 comes up" suggests it wasn't a player from the line, but that's not a definite inference.) I remember in Fed there's a difference in some case between clipping, BBW, and use of hands in the back regarding treatment of contact by A and by B, where A was allowed something B wasn't, but I don't remember which it was.

Robert

Both A and B players can legally BBW if all players involved are in the FBZ and on their LOS at the snap, as long as contact is in the FBZ before the zone goes away. Clipping is legally permitted only by A linemen on the LOS and in the zone on B players on the LOS and in the zone, if contact is in the FBZ before it vanishes. Blocking in the back is legally permitted only for A players on the LOS and in the zone on any B player in the zone at the time of the snap, if contact is in the FBZ before it vanishes.

The key difference between clipping and BIB is that only defensive players in the FBZ and on their LOS can be clipped, but any defensive player in the FBZ - whether on the LOS or not - can be legally BIBed. They key difference between those two and BBW is that a B player can legally BBW, but he can't legally clip or BIB.

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.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

If the block below the waist is illegal, it is enforced from the PLS (10y, DR or 1D) if the ball is behind the LTG, and PBH (10y, 1D) is beyond the LTG.

After that, go back 10y with the same down.

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.

They are not treated as dead ball fouls and you won't that language anywhere in the rules. They are enforced from the succeeding spot. The difference is subtle, and relevant only in a play like this.

And that's exactly why A's USC foul can't bypass the try.

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.

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.

Not to bring up a dead horse, but the President of my association made an observation that I think settles the score.

Pg 80, Fundamental "X", #4:

"Penalty enforcement for any dead ball, nonplayer or unsportsmanlike foul is from the succeeding spot unless the foul occurs on a scoring play and the team chooses enforcement on the kickoff per 8-2-2, 8-2-3 or 8-2-4."

I think this settles it and allows for the live ball non-player or USC fouls on team A to be enforced on the subsequent kickoff.

Ok, so let's look at 8-2-2, 8-2-3 and 8-2-4.

8-2-2 talks about fouls by the opponent of the scoring team so it doesn't apply since the debate is over the scoring team's USC.

8-2-3 talks about fouls by the opponent of the scoring team and a change of possession so it doesn't apply (A's USC, right?)

8-2-4...If after a touchdown-scoring play and prior to the initial ready-forplay signal for the try, either team commits any foul for which the basic spot is the succeeding spot, the offended team may have the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot or may choose to have the penalty enforced on the subsequent kickoff.

8-2-4 gives a time frame for when the foul is committed. The foul must be committed AFTER a TD-scoring play and PRIOR to the initial RFP. A's USC foul was committed BEFORE the TD so 8-2-4 doesn't apply. The only rule that tells us when to apply A's USC is 10-4-5a which is the succeeding spot, which is on the try.

I get what you're saying, I truly do.

But the fundamental here gives a very clear impression that the NFHS intends for this foul to be enforced by giving the option to B to enforce on the kickoff. The fundamental contradicts the rule. The rulebook, therefore, contradicts itself.

With the evidence of the fundamental, the Reddings Guide, and the Bin Book... I think it's clear the NFHS wants the option to be given to provide for a kickoff enforcement. I think to deny that is to refuse common sense for the purpose of being too literal.

Common sense tells me you can rarely get in trouble by doing what the rule book tells you to do. As kdf5 pointed out, all the fundamental tells you to do is read the rules in question to get your answer. The wording of the applicable rule is pretty clear.
Did the rulesmakers intend for B to get a choice on live-ball A USC fouls during a score? I believe they did.
Did the ruleswriters word the rule to allow for that choice? Obviously not.
So, you can go with what everyone thinks they intended to do or go with what they actually did. I'm in the latter camp simply because I'm a believer in doing what the rules say (& I don't have to come up with some "story" to justify my call).

I don't need to justify anything. NFHS rules don't allow protests. :D

Sure, because everyone appreciates officials who just make **** up:D

SouthGARef: The Fundamentals are great, and this fundamental is point on. You go to the succeeding spot unless you can choose enforcement under 8-2-2, 3, or 4, which you can't.

Let's be honest - nobody other than the officials working the game would ever know the difference here.

And regardless of what anyone said, I can pull out the appropriate source and give a citation. Rule on the try, cobble together the rules. On the kickoff, well, here's the bin book and the Redding guide to explain those *complicated* rules.

This is one place I am not concerned whatsoever. I know the history, backstory, etc. better than any coach I'll run into. And 99.999999999% of the officials, too.

Say what you wish, and we can agree to disagree.

I think the fundamental listed here makes it very clear that the penalty may be carried over to the kickoff.

Please explain how.

I am glad to have found this thread, yet I leave with no more an understanding than I came here with. This rule is obviously poorly written and leads to nothing but confusion.

On Friday, I had a kid somersault into the endzone on a breakaway run. We enforced the foul on the Try, but myself and the WH had some serious discussions as to what is the proper enforcement (and whether B had an option). I actually believe(d??) that the foul should be enforced on the Try with no option for B.

After the game I went to my rule book and case book and did the ol' merry go 'round and found out NOTHING. I decided to come here and post my question and obviously this one is totally unresolved here also.

Tonight I'll be bringing this play up at our meeting and hopefully I can bring the LA interpretation to the board tomorrow.

USC by A on TD - Louisiana Interpretation
 

OK, apparently our commissioner's interpretation is that live ball USC will NOT be able to be carried over to the kickoff.

For clarification I asked about three scenarios:

1) Player waves ball overhead at 5-yard line prior to scoring. RULING: USC, penalize 15 yards on Try.

2) Player somersaults into end zone. RULING: USC, penalize 15 yards on Try.

3) Player excessively celebrates after scoring TD. RULING: USC, offended team has option to enforce foul on Try or Kickoff.

Your commissioner's ruling backs up the fact that these bridge rules were put in place to keep B from getting in some cheap shot and only paying a penalty of a yard and a half.

Little help here. We had a similar discussion at our meeting. A few days later one of our guys said that the simplified and illustrated book clearly shows this type of play and it states that B would have the choice to asses on the KO. Can anyone verify that if in possession of the simplified and illustrated AKA "Officiating for Dummies"?

It will be changed next year
 

The rule was wrote by an official from Oregon. The rule was correctly written but was printed wrong. By the time it was discovered it was to late to fix. They stuck with it because some parts of the country start earlier than others. Next year it will be fixed. But this year it is before the score its on the try. After the score its either on the try or on kickoff.

We didnt think it would ever come into play. But our first game out we had this exact situation. A taunts on the 5 and scores. We had to get together and hash it out. But we got it right.

It's easy to play "What would RichMSN do" on the Internet.

Today I had a kid turn and taunt an opponent while his teammate was about 50 yards downfield on his way to scoring on a 98 yard TD run. The flag was a no brainer. It was unsportsmanlike *and* vulgar.

First, I had to go over to the visiting sideline that was apoplectic that the TD would, indeed, count. Then the coach wanted enforcement on the kickoff.

And I wouldn't allow it. Yes, I would've gotten away with it and, yes, I think it's the most equitable solution and what the NFHS intended. And yes, I had to eat a bit more crap in denying it, considering the home team has an outstanding kicker and the 35 yard extra point was, essentially, a chip shot.

But they didn't write it this way and I got *no* response when I asked the state person in charge of football about this 3-4 weeks ago. Just no response whatsoever, and I am an officials' association coordinator.

So there you have it.

Rich, I hope you don't take this the wrong way, but I don't think this will catch on. :D