You Make the Call...

[jaybird]

I didn't notice any of the non-players participating and influencing the play.
No illegal participation.

I did notice non-players out of the team box and on the field during a live ball, therefore I have unsportsmanlike conduct on team B. Incomplete pass on 4th down. Previous spot was the B 17. Succeeding spot enforcement.
B, 1/10 @ B 8.5. Snap.

[Texas Aggie]

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.

Just for an NCAA interp, the question is, did they participate? If so, its a live ball foul (15 yards). If not, its a live ball foul treated as a dead ball foul (5 yards, possibly 15 depending on how many occurred prior). If the former, offset with the offense penalty and replay. If the later, decline the offense's foul and mark off the 5 or 15.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Just for an NCAA interp, the question is, did they participate? If so, its a live ball foul (15 yards). If not, its a live ball foul treated as a dead ball foul (5 yards, possibly 15 depending on how many occurred prior). If the former, offset with the offense penalty and replay. If the later, decline the offense's foul and mark off the 5 or 15.

According to HS rules, the nonplayer unsportsmanlike is not treated progressively like the sideline warning rule. If a nonplayer is on the field, during the down, it's 15 treated as a dead ball, marked off from succeeding spot. I never saw anyone who ran onto the field participate. In fact, once they realized what was going on, they went back toward the sideline.

The illegal participation appears to be the same in NCAA and NFHS, because if they had participated, in HS it would be a live ball foul as well, offset and replay.

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by jaybird

I didn't notice any of the non-players participating and influencing the play.
No illegal participation.

I did notice non-players out of the team box and on the field during a live ball, therefore I have unsportsmanlike conduct on team B. Incomplete pass on 4th down. Previous spot was the B 17. Succeeding spot enforcement.
B, 1/10 @ B 8.5. Snap.

I disagree. If illegal participation was NOT ruled, then the applicable rule would be 3-7-6 - illegal substitution (5 yd non-player foul). This cannot be combined with the ineligible downfield since it is a non-player foul. The ineligible downfield will obviously be declined. B will get the ball and have the 5 yards enforced after possession has changed. The USC on A will also be enforced.

Had illegal participation been called (which you can justify in that clip), then it's correct to offset them, penalize A/K 15 yds and replay 4th down with the USC tacked on afterwards.


Plays like that, hopefully the R was mic'd up.

[BroKen62]

Originally Posted by jaybird

I didn't notice any of the non-players participating and influencing the play.
No illegal participation.

I did notice non-players out of the team box and on the field during a live ball, therefore I have unsportsmanlike conduct on team B. Incomplete pass on 4th down. Previous spot was the B 17. Succeeding spot enforcement.
B, 1/10 @ B 8.5. Snap.

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.

[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 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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[Larry0405]

I agree with the sequence. I do believe that defense committed a live ball foul because the number of subsititutes and proximity to holder influenced the play. So you wind up with a double foul which may have thwarted the USC penalty that followed.