You Make the Call...
 

Heres a situation from a Northern California Section title game.

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...

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.

Have fun...

Thanks!

Offsetting live ball penalties, replay the down.

If the USC penalty was given for actions after the play, dead ball, then presumably we are going to march off 15, which I would guess takes them out of field goal range?

Just talking off the top of my head though.

Illegal Participation on R (B) and Ineligible Downfield on K (A) ... Offsetting Fouls replay 4th down after the enforcement of the Unsporting Foul on K (A) ... 4th & 27 from the 32

2 for 2 so far....glad to see the the umps got it right

You guys are good.

heres a link to the video..... (it's safe)


YouTube - Illegal Participation.avi

I don't see the ineligible downfield. Can someone point that foul out to me? #88 is the end on the line on the far side and #8 is the end on the line on the near side. They are the only two who cross the LOS and both are eligible receivers.

9.8.1.i. ART. 1 . . . No coach, substitute, trainer or other team attendant shall act in an unsportsmanlike manner once the officials assume authority for the contest. Examples are, but not limited to: i. Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player. (See 3-7-6; 9-
6-4a)

After reading and researching, IMHO the proper call against the defense should be nonplayer unsportsmanlike conduct. Since this foul is treated as a dead-ball foul, it is marked off from the succeeding spot.
Soooooooooo, here's my stab, and you guys can tear it up. Since the field goal was blocked, B declines A's penalty, takes the ball, and then we mark off the unsportsmanlike fouls in the order they occurred?!?

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.

I was looking for that also and (at least within the video) did not see anything. There was #75 who looked to be behind the line when the ball was release and then while the lob pass was in the air, took off downfield attempting to catch it, but didn't touch it.

Perhaps there was someone else on the opposite side of the field.

That's what I thought too, but if you will count, there are 11 in view.

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.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Balance the Team B Illegal Substitution with the Team A Illegal Man Downfield at the LS. 10 yards each means repeat the down. But they also decided to issue OC against Team A. So: Repeat the down, Team A on the B-27. Clock on the snap.

Part of the problem may have been poor sideline control. In the video, you don't see much of team R's sideline, but K's sideline looks like it is filled with spectators lined up right on the sideline from the goal line up to the 30. Who are all these people? Maybe they aren't as close as they appear to be, but it doesn't seem that the crew was too concerned with the sidelines. That doesn't excuse R, but if the teams had been back where they belonged, maybe #50 doesn't get out there as quickly as he did.

I would call Green for IP, #50 looked to be close enough that he may have influenced the play. I didn't see the downfield, but this wasn't a tricky ruling. If this is a sectional, one would assume the crew would have a clue.

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.

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?

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!

exactly.

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.

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.

I still believe it was nonplayer USC.

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.

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

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.

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.

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?

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?

<input id="gwProxy" type="hidden"><!--Session data--><input onclick="jsCall();" id="jsProxy" type="hidden">

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.

But they wouldn't do that, because the penalty would be an awarded touchdown. Isn't that the rule for when a player comes off the bench to stop an apparent touchdown run?

Do you think #50 entered the field with the intent to substitute? Or Celebrate? That's the question. If he went onto the field to replace a player, then yes, invoke 3.7.6. BUT, if he was on the field for no other reason than to celebrate what he thought was a game-ending play, then you have to invoke 9.8.1 -
"ART. 1 . . . No coach, substitute, trainer or other team attendant shall act in an unsportsmanlike manner once the officials assume authority for the contest. Examples are, but not limited to: i. Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player."

In my opinion, neither #50 or any other B player went onto the field to take the place of a player who was already in the game, therefore, the only explanation is that they were nonplayers who were on the field and not substitutes or replaced players.

Boy, me or you one needs a new rule book.
First of all, there is no rule that gives an official authority to blow a play dead, except for a RUNNER whose helmet has come off.
Secondly, if an official does blow it dead, it's an inadvertent whistle (vulgar language where i come from :))
Third, you are correct in your interpretation of a player coming off the bench to stop an apparent touchdown run. If a sub came out and tackled the ball carrier when it was obvious he would have scored, then the Referee can invoke the unfair act rule and award a touchdown.

But the proper call for nonplayers on the field with their hats off during a touchdown scoring play is to let the runner score, then give A the option to accept the USC foul on either the try or the kickoff.
All this is black and white in the 2009 copy of the NFHS rule book.

Anyone know what caused the USC?

We had a very similar situation happen to us this year when a team thought the game was over and came running on the field. They realized the ball was still live so they ran back off and never affected the play. Team A didn't score so the game ended but their coaches were screaming at us for not flagging them. We talked about it in the locker room and knew that even if we flagged it, it would not have extended the period so the game was over either way. What we struggled with was what foul would actually apply. We ran through everything that has been mentioned here (illegal substitution, illegal participation, USC, even SLW). We checked with several other officials as well and never really got a definitive answer.

Actually, it did make a difference. If you had thrown the flag for illegal substitution or illegal participation, since both of those are live ball fouls, A would have had the opportunity to run an untimed down. If you got them for nonplayers being on the field, that's treated as a dead ball unsportsmanlike, therefore no untimed down.
3.2. ART. 3 . . . A period must be extended by an untimed down if during the last timed down of the period, one of the following occured:
a. There was a foul by either team and the penalty is accepted, except for
those fouls listed in 3-3-4b.

ART. 4 . . . A period shall not be extended by an untimed down if during the
last timed down of the period, one of the following occurs:
a. When the defense fouls during a successful try/field goal and the offended
team accepts the results of the play with enforcement of the penalty from
the succeeding spot.
b. There was a foul by either team and the penalty is accepted for:
1. unsportsmanlike fouls,
2. non-player fouls,
3. fouls that specify a loss of down, or
4. fouls that are enforced on the subsequent kickoff as in Rule 8-2-2.
NOTE: The score is cancelled in the event of an accepted foul that specifies a loss of down.

Actually the illegal substitution foul we looked at was 3-7-6 "During a down, a replaced player or substitute who enters the field, but does not participate, constitutes illegal substitution." In the penalty section for this rule it indicates this is considered a non-player foul. We couldn't find an IP rule that fit since the players did not participate. So that left us with USC or IS non-player both of which fall under the rule you state above to NOT extend the period. What I would like to know is an official word on what rule applies when this happens.

So if the marching band comes onto the field thinking the ball is dead and one of them is likely to have his trombone slid up his wazoo, you let play continue?

Yes, see Stanford/Cal. :D

You are absolutely correct. Please accept my apology.:o

The only option that would have extended the period would have been illegal participation.

Would you consider this USC, IS, SLW, or nothing considering it was the last play of the game and enforcement would not extend the game? Assuming it's not the last play of the game, does that change your ruling?

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.

Honestly, if they just overreacted to the play and were on the field because of their emotions, I wouldn't throw a flag. With the ball and the runner headed toward the goal line beyond the team box area, I would be concentrating more on what was going on down there instead of looking over my shoulder worried about nonplayers on the field. JMO.

Also, whether it was last play or not, I hope my cal/non call would not be affected by clock status, but I really don't know. I would have to be there.
Since you guys did nothing, I'm going to defer to your judgment because you were there. More than likely you did the right thing.:)