did i handle this correctly?

[Robert Goodman]

Much as I advocate finding such a foul as having occurred after the score, if everybody around saw you throw the flag and that the TD had not occurred yet, then you've got to enforce it as a live ball foul.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Much as I advocate finding such a foul as having occurred after the score, if everybody around saw you throw the flag and that the TD had not occurred yet, then you've got to enforce it as a live ball foul.

Perhaps I've been taught something incorrectly ... but I was under the impression that a live-ball PF is treated as a dead-ball PF. If that's not the case, what's the enforcement spot?

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Perhaps I've been taught something incorrectly ... but I was under the impression that a live-ball PF is treated as a dead-ball PF. If that's not the case, what's the enforcement spot?

A live ball foul PF is not enforced as a dead ball foul. The enforcement spot depends on who did it and what type of play. In this play we are discussing it would be enforced from the spot of the foul, since it was a foul by the team in possession behind the basic spot (basic spot in this case would have been the end of the run).

A live ball PF is enforced just like any other live ball fouls like a block in the back or a hold or a facemask,etc...

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Perhaps I've been taught something incorrectly ... but I was under the impression that a live-ball PF is treated as a dead-ball PF. If that's not the case, what's the enforcement spot?

You were taught incorrectly. A dead-ball PF is enforced like other dead-ball fouls, from the succeeding spot. A live-ball PF is enforced like most other live-ball fouls, under all-but-one.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You were taught incorrectly. A dead-ball PF is enforced like other dead-ball fouls, from the succeeding spot. A live-ball PF is enforced like most other live-ball fouls, under all-but-one.

Thanks!

[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.

[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.