did i handle this correctly?
 

Scrimmage kick, R fields it at the 40 going out and procedes to return it for a a touchdown. It is at K'2 2 yardline and appears to be a no brainer touch down. Meanwhile R78 procedes and pushes one of K's players in the back all the way back at the 50. I ruled it as a personal foul and counted the TD and tacked on the 15 at the kickoff. Did I screw up by throwing the flag as soon as I seen it the foul (thus the returner not in the endzone yet) Or should I have waited until the returner was clearly in the endzone then throw the flag? I'm assuming I made the right enforcement logically , however in correct terms , the enforcment was wrong because the player had yet to cross the goalline? The only thing I can think I did wrong was not wait untill the obvious td was scored before making this call. 2nd year official

You didn't necessarily do the wrong thing, but that don't mean you handled it right either.

If you KNOW that the foul happened prior to the score, why WOULDN'T you want to take the points off the board? You just need to be sure where the ball is when you throw the foul.

There's nothing wrong with taking the points off the board for a stupid act away from the play. I can guarantee, that if the coach tears the player a new one for costing the team points, the player think twice about taking a shot at another player who is out of the play in the future.

The determining factor is when the foul occurs, not when the flag is thrown.

If the foul occurs before the runner scores, bring it back.

Technically it was alive ball foul as well as an ABO foul, so not only is it not a TD but you would enforce the foul from the 50 taking the "otherwise TD return" back to their own 40 1st and 10.

We have had this discussion here and locally and although its OK to take points off the board my tendancy, especially on a play like you described is to do what you did. I can see RefBuz viewpoint as well.

I have told coaches in situaitons like that, that technically I could call back the TD...then coach screams for the kid and when he gets there he screams AT the kid.

Why are you making up your own rules?

Bringing this one back is not within the spirit of the rules IMO.
The rationale behind the all-but-one principle is that the offense gets all the yardage gained without the advantage of an illegal act. How is a BIB 50 yards behind the play giving the offense an advantage.
I would flag for a PF/UR. Score stands. 15-yards from the succeeding spot.

I have a couple questions for the OP?

1. Why are you flagging a BIB 40 yards away from the play?
2. Why are you calling a BIB a PF?
3. If the foul occurred during the play (before the TD), why are you worried about canceling the score?

From what you've said, I'm guessing that the foul isn't really a BIB, but rather a cheap shot on an unsuspecting lineman who was watching the play. That's a PF all right, but not for BIB (even if that's what he did to earn the flag).

The cheap shot or unnecessary roughness might have occurred before or after the TD. You have to make that call and enforce it accordingly. If you have to bring it back, so be it: YOU didn't cheap shot anyone. How's a kid going to learn not to do that without consequences?

It is not your job to decide which rules are not written correctly and make up your own enforcements.

Couple things...

1. If you have a PF that occurs before the TD, bring it back. I am not a big fan of grading Personal Fouls as something that shouldn't cancel a TD.

2. You said "push in the back." I definitely think if it is just a push in the back way out of the play, it is something that you would discuss with the player, not flag. Now, if he takes out an unsuspecting player well out of the play, you should flag that as a PF for unnecessary roughness. More than likely, you are right to flag the action.

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?

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...

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! :)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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

Quote:

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.

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.

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.