did i handle this correctly?

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.