You Make the Call...

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

I agree with you except for the penalty enforcement - B declines A's inelible downfield and takes the ball at the previous spot, the17. Next, because we have 2 USC's, I would enforce B's foul first because it occurred first - half the distance to the 8.5, then enforce A's dead ball USC 15 yards to the 23.5. B's Ball 1st and 10 at the 23.5.

Where was a USC on A?

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Where was a USC on A?

In the Original post:
During the discussion...an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was given to the kicking team as well.

I'm assuming A and K are the same here?

[hsfootballfan]

Thanks for the input. Seems that there really is no consensus.

I wanted to throw in some comments from our Section commissioner and another respected official in the area:

Here are some quote from NS CIF Commiss Liz Kyle:

"You cannot appeal a judgment call. A rule interpretation is appealable, but you have to do it during the game," she said. "I have talked with the Paradise administration. I told them I'd look into it. I'm still in the process."

Here is some for facts from Lloyd Menefee of Corning for the Redding unit of the California Football Officials Association.

"Illegal substitution CAN be a dead-ball foul, Menefee said, and if it was in that situation, it would have been Paradise's ball because of an incomplete pass after the blocked field goal on fourth down. A dead-ball penalty wasn't the appropriate call in that case, though, Menefee said.

"In this case the illegal substitution would have been a live-ball foul because it occurred during a live ball," he said. "The only time you get a dead-ball substitution foul is if there's 12 players in the huddle and one forgets to go out, or if someone doesn't get off the field before the ball is snapped."

More fuel for the fire.

Thanks everyone!

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by BroKen62

In the Original post:
During the discussion...an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was given to the kicking team as well.

I'm assuming A and K are the same here?

I forgot about that. Thanks.

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by hsfootballfan

Thanks for the input. Seems that there really is no consensus.

I wanted to throw in some comments from our Section commissioner and another respected official in the area:

Here are some quote from NS CIF Commiss Liz Kyle:

"You cannot appeal a judgment call. A rule interpretation is appealable, but you have to do it during the game," she said. "I have talked with the Paradise administration. I told them I'd look into it. I'm still in the process."

Here is some for facts from Lloyd Menefee of Corning for the Redding unit of the California Football Officials Association.

"Illegal substitution CAN be a dead-ball foul, Menefee said, and if it was in that situation, it would have been Paradise's ball because of an incomplete pass after the blocked field goal on fourth down. A dead-ball penalty wasn't the appropriate call in that case, though, Menefee said.

"In this case the illegal substitution would have been a live-ball foul because it occurred during a live ball," he said. "The only time you get a dead-ball substitution foul is if there's 12 players in the huddle and one forgets to go out, or if someone doesn't get off the field before the ball is snapped."

More fuel for the fire.

Thanks everyone!

Therefore, since there was not a substitution nor any participation, there can't be an illegal substitution or an illegal participation foul, which takes us back to having non-players out of the box and on the field which is unsportsmanlike conduct.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by jaybird

therefore, since there was not a substitution nor any participation, there can't be an illegal substitution or an illegal participation foul, which takes us back to having non-players out of the box and on the field which is unsportsmanlike conduct.

exactly.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by hsfootballfan

We're inside 30 seconds left in the game, score is 23 -20, team with ball is trying to tie the game.

4th and 12, offense opts for a field goal attempt from the 17.

Field goal attempt is blocked but picked up by the holder who rolls to his left, towards the opponent sideline, and attempts a forward pass behind the line of scrimmage. Pass falls incomplete...

Just wondering whether the rest of you hear a radio announcer in your head saying all this when you read this stuff. I do. Anyway...

However, there are flags on the play.

And a lot of other stuff going on as well...

There were players from the opposing teams (defense) bench running on to the field in celebration of the blocked kick, and were within a few yards of the holder with the ball during the play.

The flags were for illegal participation on the defense (during the play) and one on the offense for illegal man downfield.

Initially the team that blocked the kick was given the ball 1st and 10, a simple knee wins the game.

The coach of the team who kicked the field goal goes on to the field and requests that the referees review their ruling and asks them to assess the penalties correctly.

After 20 minutes (or so) of discussion the referees decide that the illegal participation was during a live ball.

During the discussion...an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty was given to the kicking team as well.

What is the correct call (s), what team should have the ball, and where should it be placed.


After your replies, I'll post what the refs decided and link to a video of the play, and the amazing finish.

I can't watch video here, so I'm just going by the description, with some assumptions that could well be wrong. This is an unusual situation that I don't think can be fairly handled by "normal" rules.

When the non-players ran onto the field, I'm assuming that some of them didn't have helmets on, and that all of them thought the ball was dead. That's a dangerous situation for which play should've been whistled dead.

But it wasn't whistled dead. Yet it could hardly have been considered football from that point on, and I think it should've been retroactively considered dead before the forward pass was thrown.

The bottom line is interference with play by non-players, and an equitable penalty should be administered. The time, spot, etc. should be adjusted however the referee thinks equitable. If he thinks a likely score was prevented, it should be awarded. In other words, a pure judgement call. Good luck deciding it, Solomon.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Just wondering whether the rest of you hear a radio announcer in your head saying all this when you read this stuff. I do. Anyway...


I can't watch video here, so I'm just going by the description, with some assumptions that could well be wrong. This is an unusual situation that I don't think can be fairly handled by "normal" rules.

When the non-players ran onto the field, I'm assuming that some of them didn't have helmets on, and that all of them thought the ball was dead. That's a dangerous situation for which play should've been whistled dead.
Are you talking about HS rules? Because there is nothing in the HS rule book that gives an official authority to kill a play because a nonplayer comes onto the field without his helmet on. The only thing that even comes close is the rule about the runner.
But it wasn't whistled dead. Yet it could hardly have been considered football from that point on, and I think it should've been retroactively considered dead before the forward pass was thrown.

The bottom line is interference with play by non-players, and an equitable penalty should be administered.
You would probably change your mind if you saw the video, because while the B players did run out onto the field, none of them got into the QB's way, the Receiver's way, or anybody else's way. In fact, once they realized the ball was still alive they all retreated back to the sideline. The time, spot, etc. should be adjusted however the referee thinks equitable. If he thinks a likely score was prevented, it should be awarded. In other words, a pure judgement call. Good luck deciding it, Solomon.i will agree with you here. We have the benefit of a video and ample time to think through all the possibilities, while the crew on the field had to do something right then and there. I hope it never happens to me!

I still believe it was nonplayer USC.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

When the non-players ran onto the field, I'm assuming that some of them didn't have helmets on, and that all of them thought the ball was dead. That's a dangerous situation for which play should've been whistled dead.

What rule are you using to justify this? The only time you stop the play is when the ball carrier loses his helmet, not any of the other players on the field.

[gtwbam]

Broken62:
I concur with you 100%.
This is definitely a non-player foul
which should be assessed as an USC foul from the succeeding spot.

I'll even go as far to say, you can add another 2 or 3 USC fouls against B for the additional non-players on the field.

[AFHusker]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Therefore, since there was not a substitution nor any participation, there can't be an illegal substitution or an illegal participation foul, which takes us back to having non-players out of the box and on the field which is unsportsmanlike conduct.

3-7-6 states "During a down, a replaced player or substitute who enters the field, but does not participate, constitutes illegal substitution." I believe that is was was called. If so, as stated by Mr. Menefee, it is a live ball foul in this case.

[AFHusker]

If they had ineligible down field (on A), illegal sub (on B), and a USC (on A) why are they snapping the ball from the 27?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by waltjp

What rule are you using to justify this? The only time you stop the play is when the ball carrier loses his helmet, not any of the other players on the field.

I don't know the specific rule, but I believe you are empowered to stop play when a dangerous situation not an ordinary part of the game occurs. In this case it's people entering the field not suited up and thinking the game had ended.

I'm just going by the originally posted description. If, as some viewers are writing, it was just a matter of a few non-players entering a short way into the field briefly without interfering with play and quickly getting off, then it would not be such a dangerous situation.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I don't know the specific rule, but I believe you are empowered to stop play when a dangerous situation not an ordinary part of the game occurs. In this case it's people entering the field not suited up and thinking the game had ended.

I'm just going by the originally posted description. If, as some viewers are writing, it was just a matter of a few non-players entering a short way into the field briefly without interfering with play and quickly getting off, then it would not be such a dangerous situation.

So what you're suggesting is that anytime the offense has a breakaway run the defensive players on the sideline should run onto the field with their helmets off in order to have the play whistled dead.

Why not just enforce the current rules as written that address a situation like this instead of making them up as you go along?

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by jaybird

Therefore, since there was not a substitution nor any participation, there can't be an illegal substitution or an illegal participation foul, which takes us back to having non-players out of the box and on the field which is unsportsmanlike conduct.

This is not a USC for having players outside the box. This is clearly a 3-7-6 situation.

"ART. 6 . . . During a down, a replaced player or substitute who enters the field, but does not participate, constitutes illegal substitution."

Let's use #50 here. He entered the field after the snap, realized he shouldn't be there, and left without participating. I think that's 3-7-6 to a T.