This came up at our meeting.

A23 is sprinting downfield toward the goal line for an apparent touchdown.

A73 seeing the opportunity to get back at B74 executes a legal but unnecessary block on B74 at B's 20.

What is the call?

Is it unsportsmanlike conduct penalized from the succeeding spot?

Or, a live ball personal foul penalized from B's 20?

depends....
 

Has the runner scored when the block was thrown? This would make a big difference (using NCAA mentality). If he had not scored, it would be a spot foul.

If he had scored, it would be a dead ball foul, enforced on the try.

Runner has not scored.

My argument was for a personal foul enforced from the spot of the foul.

If the runner had scored, it would be a dead ball, personal foul enforced from the succeeding spot -- point after. The argument for unsportsmanlike conduct is moot since the foul is for illegal contact.

Under NF rules, it's a personal foul for illegal contact. All unsportsmanlike conduct fouls are NON-CONTACT fouls, no matter when they occur.

Dead ball or live ball, that is the question.
 

I had a play like that last year. Runner is crossing the goal line and his teammate raises his hands overhead, then turns around and blocks one of the defenders trailing the runner. I flagged him for a dead ball personal foul for unneccessary contact. 15 yards from the succeeding spot so they attempted the try from the 18 yard line.

Lets say the runner was at the 10 yard line and the blocker was way back at the 40 yard line when he blocks a defender who is slowing down because he knows he can't reach the runner. In this case I would call a live ball personal foul for unnecessary contact. This would be enforced under the all but one rule. The defense would accept the foul, negate the touchdown and enforce the penalty from the spot of the foul.

Of course, I would be more prone to penalize this the further away from the ball the contact occurs. Most of the time I give the benefit of the doubt to the blocker if both teams are playing full speed.

Which is why the distinction betweenm personal fouls and UCS fouls is so important. If it an illegal contact PF and the foul is prior to the score, it's ABO as Mike stated. If it's noncontact USC, it's from the succeeding spot, no matter the timing.

Should be enforced as Dead Ball Foul
 

We've covered this in meetings of two separate associations this fall. Consensus This should be a live ball personal foul enforced as a dead ball foul. The foul had no remote effect on the play, therefore a score should not be nullified. This is a similar treatment to a player dancing in from the 10 yard line as he scores, where an unsportsmanlike foul actually occurred during a live ball.

Signal dead ball personal foul; PAT will be at the 18 yard line.

Can't see this as a dead ball foul
 

I'd like to see casebook support for such a ruling.

While such a block has no bearing on the play, it is a SAFETY issue. In my humble opinion, we should penalize any safety issue regardless of where it happens on the field under all-but-one even if it has no bearing on the play.

Example:

Team A runs a sweep play to the right. The left split end (A87)blocks B23 below the waist at the knees. Team A scores on the run. What is your call?

That is why the rulebook differentiates between a live-ball and dead-ball foul. This is NOT an unsportsmanlike penalty because there was contact so we can't treat it like a dead-ball foul.

At least that's the way I see it.

Differentiate between EVENTUALLY and ABOUT to Score
 

In YOUR scenario, A87 blocks below waist away from ball on a play that EVENTUALLY scores. At the time it is not known by covering official or players that a score is imminent. Therefore it is a live ball foul.

However, in the original scenario, a score is assured and obvious to all officials and players (where the ball carrier is going uncontested into the end zone), all defensive and offensive players are no longer actively participating in the play, and the foul occurs well behind the play.

If the foul is also flagrant enough, it can also warrant an ejection. However, wiping out a score in this scenario is unnecessary.

Sorry, but you cannot compare showboating while heading into the the EZ with a liveball Personal Foul committed up field.

NF clearly says to enforce the showboat as a Dead Ball Foul at the succeeding spot.
No place do they ever say to let a live ball PF be treated as a dead ball foul just because it did not affect the play and therefore would wipe out a score.

If your association wants to call it that way, so be it. But as the rules are written, it says to enforce it just as it is... A live ball foul, bring it back if the offended team accepts the penalty.

Re: Differentiate between EVENTUALLY and ABOUT to Score
 

Someone once pointed out that officials don't wipe out scores. Players actions do. :D

A knowledgable coach on the short end of this stick would be all over us if we misinterpretted a rule like this. As a matter of fact, I would expect a coach to call a coach/referee conference to address the call, especially if the runner wasn't even close to the goal line when the LIVE-BALL foul occured.

Can I ask a sincere question? Would you (or your white hat) alter you ruling if confronted during a coach/referee conference?

Re: Re: Differentiate between EVENTUALLY and ABOUT to Score
 

As a white hat I can say that absolutely no coach would ever have to call a conference to discuss my misapplication of this rule. It is a personal foul and your player just cost you a score.

However, this was discussed at our association meeting last night and most referees would call it a USC. A few would say the player had scored and make it a dead ball - personal foul. The objective is to make the coach happy that he got the score while not leaving the foul unpunished.

No guts, plenty of glory!

I expect this season not to see one of these because my umpire and I will clean up by each taking a hash mark and yelling "Play is gone, no cheat shots" as we follow the play.

Will it work? Ask me in November.

The penalty for an A player who fouls as in the above situations is covered in 9-4-2b. The rule covers both live and dead ball occurances; when in doubt its live ball (MHO).

This should not be penalized as USC because this action is not described under 9-5, it is clearly defined under 9-4 (personal conduct). Secondly, labeling this as USC puts this player on notice, the next USC is an ejection! I fyou thought his contact in the above situation was flagrant (worthy of USC) then he should be ejected then and there.

Re: Re: Re: Differentiate between EVENTUALLY and ABOUT to Score
 

I can't say that I buy into that philosophy. This is a contact foul, not an USC. It's not my fault the kid made a stupid play. Call the play by the rules and don't try to make chicken salad out of chicken $hit.

> Lets say the runner was at the 10 yard line and
> the blocker was way back at the 40 yard line when
> he blocks a defender who is slowing down because he
> knows he can't reach the runner.

Up here in the Greate White North, we call it "tourist hunting."

Happened in a game today, actually. Big, honkin' long run down the sideline, and some 40 yards from the play a linebacker is staring at what is certain to be a touchdown by the offence. He's just sittin' there, minding his own business, when he's smoked (legal block and all) by the quarterback.

In our game, that's an uneccessary roughness, and that's 15 yards from point ball held (if after yards gained.)

The ball was on the seven yard line.

In the end, the team lost by a touchdown.

All my fault of course, but you guys know that dance.