NFHS: Where do we put the ball?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Does it seem like to anyone else that the incomplete forward pass is ingored? ...almost like an extra down within a down is inadvertantly awarded.... wierd!

I wouldn't say it's ignored, but it is "funny" to get a freebie like that. But then, there are all these cases where a penalty can be accepted when the next down was going to be first anyway, and the down is "repeated" yet it's still going to be first down, when by all rights it should be a zeroth down. So maybe the extremely rare case brought up in this thread is just the first installment of payback for the loss of all those zeroth downs.

[kdf5]

I agree with welpe. K gets to throw an incomplete pass and get a new series after the down ends. "Change of possession" is defined in Rule 2 and it says that there has to be player possession, which didn't happen in this play.

[Jim D.]

Welpe had it right. A K does get sort of a free play on this, but they used it unwisely. Let's assume K recovers this ball and instead of passing, they run the ball and pick up 8 yards. They are still going to get a first down, but they managed to advance the ball up to the 48 yard line. The team that tried the pass also gets a first down, but they are still back at the 40 after the incompletion. Both situations give K a "free" shot, but the run is better than a pass.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

Welpe had it right. A K does get sort of a free play on this, but they used it unwisely. Let's assume K recovers this ball and instead of passing, they run the ball and pick up 8 yards. They are still going to get a first down, but they managed to advance the ball up to the 48 yard line. The team that tried the pass also gets a first down, but they are still back at the 40 after the incompletion. Both situations give K a "free" shot, but the run is better than a pass.

What, you're assuming it's known in advance the pass will be incomplete, or that if complete it would gain less than a run?

[merlin]

I would think that there would have to be illegal men downfield in this scenario as well.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by merlin

I would think that there would have to be illegal men downfield in this scenario as well.

Illegal men? What, no visas?

[merlin]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Illegal men? What, no visas?

Yeah, that was funny! I think my mind was fried when I wrote that. Long day at work and this play to think about was too much.
I should have said ineligibles downfield.

[CWIG]

I believe Merlin has a vaild point. There would almost certainly have to be ineligibles downfield at that point. If so, and since poessession never changed (no 'clean hands' to think about), the foul would be enforced from the previous spot. Replay of 4th down.

[Bullycon]

Originally Posted by CWIG

I believe Merlin has a vaild point. There would almost certainly have to be ineligibles downfield at that point. If so, and since poessession never changed (no 'clean hands' to think about), the foul would be enforced from the previous spot. Replay of 4th down.

A new series is still awarded to K because they are in possession at the end of a down in which R was the first to touch a scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone. (5-1-3f, 5-2-2, 5-2-5f)

It will be 1st and 10 for K from K's 35 following penalty enforcement.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by merlin

I would think that there would have to be illegal men downfield in this scenario as well.

We don't even know that the pass went beyond the neutral zone.