Fed: 0 players from team B on field

[Robert Goodman]

This comes from a thread at Coach Huey's.

Time expires for a game on a down ending with a fair catch, and the team that made the fair catch, trailing by 2 points, extends the game for a free kick down. No time out is called by either team. Team B, seeing that nothing their players could do on the field could improve their chances, but that possibly a player on the field could commit a foul, withdraws all their players to the bench.

Is team B allowed to "play" with no players on the field? Or is this failure to be ready to play, and delay of game? Is team A allowed to play with just 1 player on the field?

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

This comes from a thread at Coach Huey's.

Time expires for a game on a down ending with a fair catch, and the team that made the fair catch, trailing by 2 points, extends the game for a free kick down. No time out is called by either team. Team B, seeing that nothing their players could do on the field could improve their chances, but that possibly a player on the field could commit a foul, withdraws all their players to the bench.

Is team B allowed to "play" with no players on the field? Or is this failure to be ready to play, and delay of game? Is team A allowed to play with just 1 player on the field?

I'm going to take a wild guess at this and say both would be fine. I'd probably try to get both teams to have 11 players on the field though before I blow the RFP so we don't make a mockery of the situation. Not sure what I would do if either team refused.

[HLin NC]

Actually you would have a violation of 3-6-3:
ART. 3 . . . Failure of a team to play within two minutes after being ordered to
do so by the referee.
PENALTY: (Art. 3) – forfeiture

Team B might not care but I'm sure Team A will get the other 10 out there.

It might be simpler just to invoke 3-1-3 and skip the free kick down.

ART. 3 . . . A period or periods may be shortened in any emergency by agreement of the opposing coaches and the referee. By mutual agreement of the opposing coaches and the referee, any remaining period may be shortened at any time or the game terminated.

[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".

[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.