Free kick after a fair catch?

[bbcof83]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Try explaining that to B's coach!

I think they should eliminate the follow up opportunity. Once the ball is snapped after the FC I think that should end the opportunity for free kick..in my humble opinion

Yes, this to me makes absolutely NO sense. Anyone disagree?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by bbcof83

Yes, this to me makes absolutely NO sense. Anyone disagree?

I disagree. Of course it makes sense. If there's an accepted penalty against the defense on the first play after the FC, then the play never occurred. So the offense once again has the option.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

I disagree. Of course it makes sense. If there's an accepted penalty against the defense on the first play after the FC, then the play never occurred. So the offense once again has the option.

Of course a play might have occurred.. unless we're talking a dead-ball encroachment.

It really doesn't make sense. Team-B could commit DPI, have a 15 yard-mark off against them, along with the another (for statictical purposes) a first down for Team-A and eight, nine or more seconds ticked off the clock. I'm not putting time back on the clock.. so a play did occur.

Nah... this really doesn't make sense. I'm for a change that eliminates the option to free kick on anything but a dead-ball foul against either teamm

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Theisey

Nah... this really doesn't make sense. I'm for a change that eliminates the option to free kick on anything but a dead-ball foul against either teamm

So if A choses to kick and there is a foul and the down is replayed then they must snap instead of kick?

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by LDUB

So if A choses to kick and there is a foul and the down is replayed then they must snap instead of kick?

I don't think I said that... I believe I said they could rekick if there was some sort of dead-ball foul, not if there was a live ball foul during the initial free kick.

But I implied that if you choose to snap... and there is a foul of any kind thereafter.. the free-kick option is null and void. That makes sense to me.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Theisey

But I implied that if you choose to snap... and there is a foul of any kind thereafter.. the free-kick option is null and void. That makes sense to me.

So if they kick and the down is repeated then they cannot chose to snap either?

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by LDUB

So if they kick and the down is repeated then they cannot chose to snap either?

That's what I would propose should I felt like submitting an just change.

Really though, just what realistic kind of live ball foul could happen on a free kick attempt for a field goal? I'm just not visualizing any that would result in this unique free kick being repeated. I have my doubts that team-K would even run down the field .

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Theisey

Of course a play might have occurred.. unless we're talking a dead-ball encroachment.

It really doesn't make sense. Team-B could commit DPI, have a 15 yard-mark off against them, along with the another (for statictical purposes) a first down for Team-A and eight, nine or more seconds ticked off the clock. I'm not putting time back on the clock.. so a play did occur.

Nah... this really doesn't make sense. I'm for a change that eliminates the option to free kick on anything but a dead-ball foul against either teamm

I think I understand the logic of your complaint to where I can explain it a little better than you have so far.

A has the option of free kick or snap. They decide to snap, and during the down, B fouls. The nature of team B's play and their reason for fouling is entirely different from what would've occurred during a free kick down. So for instance, let's say it was DPI as in your example. No DPI could possibly have occurred had it been a free kick down instead of a scrimmage down. The penalty for DPI is meant to remedy a type of unfair play against forward passes. It's inequitable to then allow a free kick to be taken as a way of "repeating the down", when the conditions of the forward pass could not be duplicated.

Looking at it another way, once A first chose the scrimmage, they had no way to anticipate that B would commit a foul either before or during the down, and so they should not be allowed to benefit tactically by effectively deferring their choice of way to put the ball in play.

OTOH, the same could be said if A chose a free kick and then fouled either before or during the down -- that if the down was to be repeated, they should not be allowed to change the method of putting the ball into play to a snap, even if the original reason for the free kick choice was strongly dependent on field position.

Of course it would be right to say that no repetition of a down can ever recreate fully the conditions. Someone could argue that if DPI were called, a forward pass should be required on the next down, but of course that would distort the conditions even more than just allowing another snap. I got into a long argument with Scott Taylor about my "zeroth down" proposal for repeat-the-down penalties following CoP because we disagree over whether that or the current penalty administration comes closest to setting back the conditions to when the foul occurred.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I got into a long argument with Scott Taylor about my "zeroth down" proposal for repeat-the-down penalties following CoP because we disagree over whether that or the current penalty administration comes closest to setting back the conditions to when the foul occurred.

Ah, Scott Taylor. That brings back memories. As Scott passed away about 3 years ago, you won't be having that argument with him again. It was entertaining, though, as was Scott over on alt.sport.officiating (and when it all moved to rec.sport.officiating).

[ajmc]

There's a really simple remedy that totally eliminates any, and all, problems with this enforcement; don't commit defensive fouls on a down following a FC.

The current rule gives R a choice of putting the ball in play by snap, or free kick. B makes that choice based, partially, on field position. 99+% of the time B is going to choose putting the ball in play by snap. They run a play, during which they don't do anything wrong and because of some error on the part of the defense, are allowed to REPEAT the down.

Why should they lose the choice they had EARNED by making a Fair Catch? Of course, you might consider this happens, "once in a blue moon" adding a rare level of strategy for those who have taken the time to learn the rules of the game.

As for "harmonizing" the rules. If you want Canadian Football, I'm sure our neighbors to the North would welcome your visit, or if you want NCAA rules there are 2 States and countless colleges that will satisfy your needs. We also have NFL games in cities across the nation at your disposal.

Football rules began at the collegiate level and over the years have modified in one direction to accomodate younger athletes, and the other direction to accomodate adults. Both accomodations make sense for their respective audiences. Coaches should focus on the level they coach, not where they might have played, or watch on TV.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There's a really simple remedy that totally eliminates any, and all, problems with this enforcement; don't commit defensive fouls on a down following a FC.

Duh, there's an even simpler remedy: Don't play football.

As for "harmonizing" the rules. If you want Canadian Football, I'm sure our neighbors to the North would welcome your visit, or if you want NCAA rules there are 2 States and countless colleges that will satisfy your needs. We also have NFL games in cities across the nation at your disposal.

Football rules began at the collegiate level and over the years have modified in one direction to accomodate younger athletes, and the other direction to accomodate adults. Both accomodations make sense for their respective audiences. Coaches should focus on the level they coach, not where they might have played, or watch on TV.

I hope you understand that the harmoniz'n process I described involved consolidating the rules for the different types of free kicks and reducing their idiosyncracies within one code, not between codes.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RichMSN

Ah, Scott Taylor. That brings back memories. As Scott passed away about 3 years ago, you won't be having that argument with him again.

Last I'd heard, his diabetes was well managed, things seemed OK. What got him?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Last I'd heard, his diabetes was well managed, things seemed OK. What got him?

The big C, from what I heard, late in 2006. "The late Scott Taylor" is credited in the NFHS Redding Guide.

[Texas Aggie]

They restored the fair catch in 1951, minus the kick option.

Are you sure? Jerry Markbriet makes a reference to the "new" fair catch rule when he made a Big 10 crew in the mid-60s. He missed a call in a game related to the FC.

I know the Nelson book says what you said, but I'm wondering if he's mistaken.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Are you sure? Jerry Markbriet makes a reference to the "new" fair catch rule when he made a Big 10 crew in the mid-60s. He missed a call in a game related to the FC.

I know the Nelson book says what you said, but I'm wondering if he's mistaken.

Not Nelson, but a booklet by John Williams, published by NCAA for the 100th anniversary (1976) of the original intercollegiate football rules committee. It had appendices detailing all the changes of the two most frequently amended provisions to that time, that dealing with the fair catch and that dealing with substitution. It was rare that long went by without changes regarding the fair catch, so I'm sure Jerry Markbreit was right about there being a new fair catch rule in the middle 1960s. Many of the changes had to do with the details of signaling for one. Interestingly, not long after the booklet came out, the provisions for fair catches in NCAA stopped being frequently changed.