did i handle this correctly?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I am a little surprised by what I'm reading here. Everything I've heard from officials better than me (including those who work at higher levels) is to make this kind of foul a dead ball foul if at all possible (score or no score). If he commits the foul so far before the ball became dead, you have no choice but to make it a live ball foul. But more often than not, it is so close to the ball becoming dead that it could considered a dead ball foul with no issues from anyone. Do you all really call this that closely and make this kind of play of a live ball foul? If you do, I suggest you re-think that approach if you try to move up to higher levels.

With all due respect to all those "better" officials, including the ones at higher levels, the advice they've given should be applied carefully and relate to each specific incident at hand. There really are no "generic" calls for these type incidences. I would agree with the notion to "try" and consider such fouls as Dead ball fouls WHEN the action is close enough to the ball being dead as to cause some doubt as to the actual status.

However, when there is no doubt and the foul clearly happens before the ball becomes dead, the appropriate call is a live ball foul. To do otherwise, allow a score to stand that should have been nullified by a blatant and stupid act, is declaring "open season" for blatant and stupid acts and is rewarding the type of actions we all want to see removed from the game and providing an unearned advantage to a team, and a player, who have earned neither.

Most penalties are intended as both punishment for behaving badly and/or motivation to reject bad behavior in the future. We do not have any authority to grant scores that are not legitimately earned, which is exactly what we would be doing by declaring a foul, we know for sure to be alive ball foul, eligible for dead ball enforcement.

Repeated Points of Emphasis regarding reducing unnecessary and excessive contacts will have little effect if perpetrators are granted excuses for their bad behavior that allows them to avoid the most serious component of the penalty they have earned and deserve. Their behavior is what it is, and dealing with it accordingly seems like the fairest, and most instructive, way to handle it.

If "moving ahead to a higher level" is your primary motivation, displaying a reluctance to make the "tough call", doesn't sound like a wise way to pursue your goal.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by ajmc

With all due respect to all those "better" officials, including the ones at higher levels, the advice they've given should be applied carefully and relate to each specific incident at hand. There really are no "generic" calls for these type incidences. I would agree with the notion to "try" and consider such fouls as Dead ball fouls WHEN the action is close enough to the ball being dead as to cause some doubt as to the actual status.

However, when there is no doubt and the foul clearly happens before the ball becomes dead, the appropriate call is a live ball foul. To do otherwise, allow a score to stand that should have been nullified by a blatant and stupid act, is declaring "open season" for blatant and stupid acts and is rewarding the type of actions we all want to see removed from the game and providing an unearned advantage to a team, and a player, who have earned neither.

Most penalties are intended as both punishment for behaving badly and/or motivation to reject bad behavior in the future. We do not have any authority to grant scores that are not legitimately earned, which is exactly what we would be doing by declaring a foul, we know for sure to be alive ball foul, eligible for dead ball enforcement.

Repeated Points of Emphasis regarding reducing unnecessary and excessive contacts will have little effect if perpetrators are granted excuses for their bad behavior that allows them to avoid the most serious component of the penalty they have earned and deserve. Their behavior is what it is, and dealing with it accordingly seems like the fairest, and most instructive, way to handle it.

If "moving ahead to a higher level" is your primary motivation, displaying a reluctance to make the "tough call", doesn't sound like a wise way to pursue your goal.

I think I'll stick with the advice given to me by people I know to be excellent officials who have excelled at all levels, not just higher levels rather than a bunch of anonymous people on a web forum. They all know the intent and purpose of this rule and enforce it as such. If the hit takes place with the runner at the 30 and he scores, no doubt it's a live ball foul and enforced as such. If he's inside the 5 and you see the hit back at the 50, you have no idea where the runner is in relation to the hit and it definitely had no impact on the play. If it's flagrant enough, you can eject the player. Otherwise it's a stupid move that can be enforced on the try or kick off which is still a punishment to the offending team.

A wise official once said, a good official will call a game by the letter of the rules. A great official will call a game by the spirit of the rules. I'm chosing to try to be a great official regardless of the level I work.

[Forksref]

If it was a FOUL, I will flag it. None of us saw the contact. We all have to make the judgment as to if it warranted a flag or should be a "talking to." But, if I judge it to indeed be a foul, I will flag it as a live ball foul if it was during a live ball. I will never move a live ball foul to a dead ball foul/enforcement (not including USC).

I have a rule book. I learn it. I apply it. Certainly, there are judgments to be made, but I don't set aside rules, particularly in safety situations.

[RadioBlue]

The spirit of the all-but-one principle is to give the non-offending team (A) the benefit of any yards gained without the benefit of an illegal act. If a PF by A happens 40 yards behind the play, how can that illegal act be of any benefit to the scoring team? Did it allow for his team to score? No. The only reason this unsporting act is a PF is because contact was involved. But, really, this isn't a football play. This is an unsporting act that we, as officials, must flag as a PF because of that contact.

By the letter of the law, I understand this is a spot foul. By spirit and intent when looking at the rules as an entire body, I have difficulty in justifying the negating of a score and assessing what amounts to a 50+ yard penalty.

Granted, I'm not the one that made the stupid hit. But, certainly, the punishment does not jive with the spirit of the all-but-one principle.

[mbyron]

I disagree. The "spirit" of all-but-one is to simplify enforcements. The only simpler principle would be "all": enforce all fouls (with the usual exceptions) from the basic spot. Bringing back a scoring play because of a PF upfield is consistent with this spirit.

I still don't see what the big deal is. Individuals don't score, teams do. And a team may not score on a down during which they foul. Why, as an official, do I care whether they score?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

The spirit of the all-but-one principle is to give the non-offending team (A) the benefit of any yards gained without the benefit of an illegal act. If a PF by A happens 40 yards behind the play, how can that illegal act be of any benefit to the scoring team? Did it allow for his team to score? No. The only reason this unsporting act is a PF is because contact was involved. But, really, this isn't a football play. This is an unsporting act that we, as officials, must flag as a PF because of that contact.

By the letter of the law, I understand this is a spot foul. By spirit and intent when looking at the rules as an entire body, I have difficulty in justifying the negating of a score and assessing what amounts to a 50+ yard penalty.

Granted, I'm not the one that made the stupid hit. But, certainly, the punishment does not jive with the spirit of the all-but-one principle.

That's true, and if you can get away with it (i.e. the sequence of events wasn't obvious to everyone), you can correct for the deficiency of the letter of the rule w.r.t. its spirit. Otherwise what's needed is a rule change distinguishing tactical from non-tactical fouls.

NCAA used to have enforcements (before there even were separate NFL & Fed codes) that differed a lot from what the football codes have now, partly on the above basis. It used to be that for USC and UR fouls, the line to gain was moved along with the spot, because it was recognized that the foul didn't actually help or hinder a team in advancing the ball. In other words, the down and distance to gain remained the same, and only the field position changed. I think the reason they did away with that type of enforcement was for ease of administration.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I disagree. The "spirit" of all-but-one is to simplify enforcements. The only simpler principle would be "all": enforce all fouls (with the usual exceptions) from the basic spot. Bringing back a scoring play because of a PF upfield is consistent with this spirit.

I still don't see what the big deal is. Individuals don't score, teams do. And a team may not score on a down during which they foul. Why, as an official, do I care whether they score?

Hey, MB
I understand what you are saying. However, p. 77 of the 2009 NF rules with regard to penalty enforcement states,

Enforcement philosophy is based on the fact that a team is given the advantage of the distance which is gained without assistance of a foul.

What distance is gained by a foul 40 yards behind the runner? This is my basis for stating the spirit of the all-but-one principle.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Hey, MB
I understand what you are saying. However, p. 77 of the 2009 NF rules with regard to penalty enforcement states,

Enforcement philosophy is based on the fact that a team is given the advantage of the distance which is gained without assistance of a foul.

What distance is gained by a foul 40 yards behind the runner? This is my basis for stating the spirit of the all-but-one principle.

If the foul occurred at the point of attack, this philosophy would be relevant. If I call a PF 40 yards upfield, it's a safety or sportsmanship issue, not an advantage issue.

If the scoring team wants their scores, they can tell their linemen to quit screwing around and play the game.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

The spirit of the all-but-one principle is to give the non-offending team (A) the benefit of any yards gained without the benefit of an illegal act. If a PF by A happens 40 yards behind the play, how can that illegal act be of any benefit to the scoring team? Did it allow for his team to score? No. The only reason this unsporting act is a PF is because contact was involved. But, really, this isn't a football play. This is an unsporting act that we, as officials, must flag as a PF because of that contact.

By the letter of the law, I understand this is a spot foul. By spirit and intent when looking at the rules as an entire body, I have difficulty in justifying the negating of a score and assessing what amounts to a 50+ yard penalty.

Granted, I'm not the one that made the stupid hit. But, certainly, the punishment does not jive with the spirit of the all-but-one principle.

Sounds like we've been listening to the same clinicians. If it is so obvious the hit occurred while the ball is live, I will go with a live ball foul. Very rarely is it that obvious though.

[Canned Heat]

If the kid was getting the other in the back for that long and at the point a PF was needed, I'd have to imagine that someone from both sides saw the act of the penalty. Where and how you choose to enforce it is going to be debated by either team. Either way and whichever way it goes, someone's gonna get an earful or an a$$-chewing. Pick your poison.

I've had plays like this...similar to the Chad Clifton/Warren Sapp play a few years ago, and as unfortunate as it may be to bring a score back out of the endzone...rules are still rules. If there wasn't a whistle at or during the initial action, it probably should've come back. IMO.