Fed: 0 players from team B on field

[MD Longhorn]

Honestly, this is pretty far fetched. Team B is still winning this game. He'll put his players on the field. Even without threatening him with forfeit. If he doesn't, A will simply run a play from scrimmage and score the TD. At least if he has to try the free kick, the outcome is still in doubt. I'm really not sure what rule-stretching/learning we're trying to accomplish with this one.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Where is this topic going? Of course anyone can choose to act like a spoiled child and throw a tantrum whenever they want, but once you reach about age 3, it's no longer acceptable. Please don't insult anyone's intelligence with this "concern" over safety/injury nonsense.

The game is 48, or 60, minutes long. If you start the game, you finish the game, hopefully without pouting because you were outplayed, or even just outscored. There is a sense of integrity associated with the game itself, and those who choose to participate in the game OWE the game respect.

According to NF: 10-1-9-5 it is exclusively "in the opinion of the Referee" as to what constitutes making a "travesty of the game".

You consider the scenario I proposed being akin to a tantrum or travesty of the game??! Do you understand what "playing" means?

Fortunately baseball ends when the W-L outcome of the game is decided, rather than making a team in the lead bat in the bottom of the last inning. In basketball they don't make the other players stand on the court when free throws are awarded with no time in a period. In football, I see no reason -- unless the rules require it, which is what my question was about -- for 11 persons who were formerly playing a game to go stand in a certain area when it will have no bearing on the result. Only team A's kicker, in the scenario I brought up, can have a bearing on the result, unless somebody does something really stupid that nobody should encourage, like committing USC or fruitlessly engaging in body contact.

It seems to me just the opposite, that making them go out there would be the travesty.

[ajmc]

What is so wonderful about this country, Robert, is you can do pretty much whatever you want, as long as you have the authority. As clearly stated in NF:10-1-9-5 determining what exactly is, or is not, a travesty is "in the opinion of the Referee", so if you're wearing the White Hat you can do (pretty much) whatever you think is right.

If I'm wearing the White Hat, the receivers will line up, at least some of them, or risk forfeiting the game, which would be a terrible, and worse-avoidable, mistake. I would make a serious effort to persuade them not to do so.

[MD Longhorn]

If they aren't coming out, I'm telling the offense so they can run a much easier TD up the middle rather than a more risky free kick. Better yet, I tell the defense that's what I'm doing and let them decide if they want players on the field.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If they aren't coming out, I'm telling the offense so they can run a much easier TD up the middle rather than a more risky free kick. Better yet, I tell the defense that's what I'm doing and let them decide if they want players on the field.

Hey here in the land of NCAA rules, we don't even have to worry about the free kick after a fair catch.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

If they aren't coming out, I'm telling the offense so they can run a much easier TD up the middle rather than a more risky free kick. Better yet, I tell the defense that's what I'm doing and let them decide if they want players on the field.

But team A can't revoke their choice of a free kick unless a choice of penalty intervenes, can they?