Fed: 0 players from team B on field

[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".

[HLin NC]

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.

I've worked plenty of 56-7 blowouts where the outcome is not in question. NC doesn't have a "mercy rule" so we are forced to finish. In some instances, we can't even get the losing coach to agree to modify the timing- so he can prove a point, make his kids suffer more, whatever. This is no different.

As I mentioned previously, Rule 3-6-3 applies to both teams, not just Team A so yes, we can force Team B to play. If the coach then wants to be an @$$, we'll wait the two minutes and record the forfeit. I guess he won't mind since the outcome is not in question.

One of the principles that NC pounds into us is "the field/court is an extension of the classroom". Coach can get his letter inviting him to meet with the powers that be in Chapel Hill and explain how his conduct was such a shining educational beacon.

[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.