Fed: 0 players from team B on field

[Theisey]

help me fellows... why are we extending the down? I don't see any valid reason too.
Is there something missing from Coach Huey's posting?

[With_Two_Flakes]

I'm no NFHS rules expert (I only get over to the US every 3 or 4 years to do HS ball, we work NCAA in Europe) but I'm with Theisey on this one.

What exactly is extending the period to give them the opportunity to "free kick or snap.....when a fair catch is made"? Don't recall a fair catch being in the list of things that extend the period in Rule 3. If time expired during the play then the game is over.

[HLin NC]

If it were an awarded fair catch, that is considered penalty acceptance for the purposes of extending a period. Of course the OP didn't state it was an awarded fair catch so .......

[ajmc]

If the game simply ended during a foul free down that ended with a Fair Catch, the game would be over. If, however there was an accepted penalty, by either team, (other than USC, non-player fouls, LOD fouls and others specified in 3-3-4b), there must be an untimed down.

Since an untimed down is considered an extension of the period, B does not have an option about lining up. I suspect a competent Referee, explaining the potential ramifications of violating 3-6-3 (forfeit), could persuade a rational coach to accept the fact he needs to field some number of players for that untimed down and avoid making a complete and utter fool of himself.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by With_Two_Flakes

I'm no NFHS rules expert (I only get over to the US every 3 or 4 years to do HS ball, we work NCAA in Europe) but I'm with Theisey on this one.

What exactly is extending the period to give them the opportunity to "free kick or snap.....when a fair catch is made"? Don't recall a fair catch being in the list of things that extend the period in Rule 3. If time expired during the play then the game is over.

Sorry. It used to be universal that a choice of a free kick would extend the period, but obviously Fed doesn't have that any more. I wanted a situation in which team A could not possibly benefit by recovery of their own free kick, and team B doesn't want to try to run up the score by running back an errant kick, so neither team would have reason to have any players besides the kicker on the field.

So OK, make it a game extended by penalty with a free kick chosen, and it's the same question. If no players other than the kicker could possibly contribute to the decision of the game, would you still require the full teams to be on the field?

[HLin NC]

Yes-

[Mike L]

Well, if neither team wants to extend play, why would either of them accept a penalty that would extend it?

But, if they insist.....I'd say yes each must have 11 on the field. But I might mention to R's coach there's nothing in the rules that says his 11 have to stay on the field during the kick and then see if he's smart enough to figure out a solution.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So OK, make it a game extended by penalty with a free kick chosen, and it's the same question. If no players other than the kicker could possibly contribute to the decision of the game, would you still require the full teams to be on the field?

You might reference NF: 1-1-3 "Each team shall begin the game with 11 players, but if it has no substitutes to replace injured or disqualified players, it may continue with fewer." An untimed down, extending a period is considered an extension of that period, and part of the game.

[MD Longhorn]

That doesn't work - it just says you must begin the GAME with 11... not each down. Honestly, think about this. If defense has 10 on the field during the game, what do we do? Nothing. 9? Nothing. 8? Other than, "Um coach, you might want to count your players..." ... NOTHING.

I can't see why, once we've told B to get ready, we would have to REQUIRE anything at all.

A, of course, needs whatever they are required to have for a free kick. Not necessarily 11. (NCAA it would be 9 - a kicker and 4 on each side of the ball).

[Lintner5]

Why require Team B to send anyone on the field? They're not required to be there by rule and their injury risk is presumably reduced by not being on the field.

I had a similar situation occur in a sub-varisty game several years ago. Team B was down by about 40 when they scored with 0:05 left on the clock. As I was getting ready for the free kick, Team A's coach commented about whether it was worth going through the motions. I told him he wasn't required to field a kick return team and that the likelihood of Team B scoring more than once in the allotted time was very unlikely. Of course, he sent a kick return team out and no injuries occured during the free kick.

Similarly, if the losing team didn't want to line up to watch their opponent take a knee from across the neutral zone, I don't think forcing a team to put 11 players on the field is productive. If the outcome is not in question, I don't believe it's appropriate for officials to force a team to put 11 players on the field to wait for the clock to expire. Nonetheless, I doubt many coaches would not field a team regardless of the score and time remaining.

[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".