Grounding enforcement

[Texas Aggie]

NCAA: After watching an intentional grounding call tonight in the Texas/tech game (made partly by a friend of mine!!), I needed to double check on a half the distance enforcement. The enforcement spot on grounding is the spot of the foul. There's no additional yardage markoff. Yet, there is no exception in Rule 10 for half distance enforcement. I know if its in the end zone, its a safety, but if it is at the two, we put it at the 2?

[Welpe]

Sounds right to me.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

After watching an intentional grounding call tonight in the Texas/tech game (made partly by a friend of mine!!), I needed to double check on a half the distance enforcement. The enforcement spot on grounding is the spot of the foul. There's no additional yardage markoff. Yet, there is no exception in Rule 10 for half distance enforcement. I know if its in the end zone, its a safety, but if it is at the two, we put it at the 2?

CANADIAN RULING:

Roll the down at the point of foul.

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

NCAA: After watching an intentional grounding call tonight in the Texas/tech game (made partly by a friend of mine!!), I needed to double check on a half the distance enforcement. The enforcement spot on grounding is the spot of the foul. There's no additional yardage markoff. Yet, there is no exception in Rule 10 for half distance enforcement. I know if its in the end zone, its a safety, but if it is at the two, we put it at the 2?

If your buddy was the L, that sum***** can fly!!! I recall on one interception he reversed field and really zipped quite a distance to the goal line!!

Yep, spot foul. Only time 1/2 the dinstance would kick in there would be if you had a situation where you judged the pass was illegal for something other than just to conserve yardage. Ex: QB was grounding the ball to save time. Since that carries a 5 yard penalty from spot of foul, you might only be able to go 1/2 the distance from spot of foul depending on where foul took place.

[Texas Aggie]

This is a rules conflict since there is the clear statement of "no penalty" shall be enforced more than half the distance and the exception isn't given here as it is for, say, DPI.

[Welpe]

The rule says "No distance penalty..."

There is no distance penalty for intentional grounding to save yardage. The down is simply counted at the spot of the foul.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

This is a rules conflict since there is the clear statement of "no penalty" shall be enforced more than half the distance and the exception isn't given here as it is for, say, DPI.

That is semantics, if there is a rule that allows for a specific penalty to be enforced a certain way, why does it matter what one aspect of the rule says or does not say? I do not see that as a conflict at all. At least not one that matters. What is the intent of that wording? That is all that should matter.

Peace

[With_Two_Flakes]

Welpe has nailed it.

10-2-6 does indeed say "No distance penalty...blah blah...half distance....".

7-3-2-f PENALTY says "Loss of Down at the spot of the foul" so there is no distance involved.

[Texas Aggie]

There is no distance penalty for intentional grounding to save yardage.

I think "spot of the foul" potentially makes it a distance penalty. Had it said previous spot, like on a first touching by player OOB, you'd be right. The only reason the ball is brought back to the spot is because we flagged it (obviously). So we have a foul, a penalty, and a probable loss of yardage due to the foul. I think one way to look at distance is to compare what it would have been had the flag not been thrown.

However, I get the point and I think if this has come up with the committee, they probably viewed it as you do.

I still think there's enough potential confusion to make an editorial change.

What is the intent of that wording?

The problem is that you could look at that in many different ways. Think macro for a second: is the intent of the rules committee, except in specified situations, to make ANY loss of yardage due to penalty no more than half the distance to the goal line? If so, there needs to be an specified exception.

The definition of clipping already includes an exception regarding the runner, but the specific rule prohibiting clipping includes that reference again. Thus, there's a bit of redundancy already in the book.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

So we have a foul, a penalty, and a probable loss of yardage due to the foul. I think one way to look at distance is to compare what it would have been had the flag not been thrown.

The other way to look at it is if the ball had not been thrown. I don't think you look at it as a loss of distance due to penalty; the ball was already there when the foul was committed.

The problem is that you could look at that in many different ways. Think macro for a second: is the intent of the rules committee, except in specified situations, to make ANY loss of yardage due to penalty no more than half the distance to the goal line?

Yes, but I don't think they viewed this as a loss of yardage due to penalty.

The definition of clipping already includes an exception regarding the runner, but the specific rule prohibiting clipping includes that reference again. Thus, there's a bit of redundancy already in the book.

That's a result of committee work over long periods of time. I was once part of a body that amended its bylaws without realizing we were using an out of date copy, and that the bylaw in question had already been amended years previously to the same end. But it's better when redundancies creep in than when contradictions do!

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I think "spot of the foul" potentially makes it a distance penalty. Had it said previous spot, like on a first touching by player OOB, you'd be right. The only reason the ball is brought back to the spot is because we flagged it (obviously). So we have a foul, a penalty, and a probable loss of yardage due to the foul. I think one way to look at distance is to compare what it would have been had the flag not been thrown.

However, I get the point and I think if this has come up with the committee, they probably viewed it as you do.

I still think there's enough potential confusion to make an editorial change.



The problem is that you could look at that in many different ways. Think macro for a second: is the intent of the rules committee, except in specified situations, to make ANY loss of yardage due to penalty no more than half the distance to the goal line? If so, there needs to be an specified exception.

The definition of clipping already includes an exception regarding the runner, but the specific rule prohibiting clipping includes that reference again. Thus, there's a bit of redundancy already in the book.

RR is in the middle of a major rewrite of the book so if you have anything like this you want considered , send it in to him

[ppaltice]

Originally Posted by TXMike

If your buddy was the L, that sum***** can fly!!! I recall on one interception he reversed field and really zipped quite a distance to the goal line!!

I was thinking the same thing. I rewound it to watch again.