foul in overtime
 

on the first possession in overtime, team A scores a touchdown. on the play, team B has a live ball personal foul facemask penalty. can team A have the option to take the penalty on the try or have it put on the succeeding spot?

For NFHS, only on the try. The wording in Rule 8-2-2 is subsequent kickoff, which precludes its use in OT.

Actually, although you are spot-on regarding the language of the rule, this caseplay suggests that you can have the foul assessed at the succeeding spot:

8.2.2 SITUATION C: On the last timed down of the fourth period, the opponents of Team A foul on a play where Team A: (a) scores a touchdown that leaves Team A trailing by one point, (b) scores a field goal which ties the game, or (c) scores a touchdown that leaves team A trailing by one point and the opponents also foul on the try. RULING: In (a), Team A has the option to keep the score, with the penalty assessed on the try. The penalty cannot be assessed on the first play of overtime as there is no subsequent kickoff. In (b), Team A has the option to keep the score, with penalty assessment on the first play of overtime as the first play of overtime is the succeeding spot. In (c), Team A may only have the penalty for the opponent foul on the scoring play enforced on the try but cannot carry over the penalty to overtime; however, the foul by the opponent during the try could be enforced on the first play of overtime at Team A’s choice.

Check out the wording of the ruling in (b).

in B there is no try.

----Yoda

True, but there is no subsequent kickoff either, which was the point of the post. The option to accept a foul during a scoring play and have it assessed at the succeeding spot in overtime is a valid option. If the foul is on b, A can accept the score and have the foul applied to either the try or the succeeding spot. This caseplay supports that, as they allow the penalt to be carried over to the succeeding spot, which is not a subsequent kickoff, but a snap.

The try is the succeeding spot.

In the case play in B, the scoring play is a FG, so the subsequent kickoff is the succeeding spot.

No, in the case play in B, because the score was a field goal to tie the game on the last play of the game, the succeeding spot is the spot where the ball will first be snapped in OT, determined by the coin toss.

Okay, that's true, my bad. The first snap in OT is the succeeding spot.

In the original post, the face mask penalty would have to be assessed on the try, because the try is the succeeding spot. The penalty cannot be assessed on B's 1st down play. B's 1sr down play is not the succeeding spot.

In case play A: Team A has not tied the score with the TD, so the only guaranteed succeeding spot is the Try.

Ok, I must have misunderstood ppaltice's post. I thought he was saying that the carryover provision for fouls on scoring plays never applied in OT. Clearly, there are some fouls that apply, specifically fouls during a try in OT. I understand that fouls during a "touchdown" scoring play cannot be carried over during overtime because there is no subsequent kickoff, but fouls during the try can be carried over during OT because of the "succeeding spot" language, Right?

You're making this harder than it is. For fouls on scoring plays where there will not be a kickoff, enforce the penalty from the succeeding spot.

The succeeding spot might be a try, if the score was a TD, or it might be an overtime spot, if the foul occurred during a try or FG.

So what you are saying is that, since this is an overtime play and there is no subsequent kickoff, the penalty should be enforced from the succeeding spot - the try? But, if the penalty happened during the try, A could have the option to accept and replay, or apply the penalty to the succeeding spot, which would be B's first possession?

That's exactly what I'm saying. There is a provision in OT for accepting a score and marking the penalty off from the succeeding spot. The fact that there is no subsequent kickoff does not preclude that.

Scoring play is not the correct terminology, because there are a few ways you can score (TD, try, FG, and safety). Each have their on provisions for fouls that occur during the play.

The OP specified touchdown. On a foul by the defense that occurs during a TD, the penalty may be assessed on either the try or the subsequent kickoff. If the foul occurs during OT, there is no subsequent KO, so the penalty can only be assessed on the try (Rule 8-2-2).

If the penalty by the defense occurred during a successful try, A has the option of having the penalty assessed on the try and replaying or on the succeeding spot (which means it can carry over to the next series in OT) (Rule 8-3-5).

If the penalty by the defense occured during a successful FG, A has the option of having the penalty assessed from the previous spot and replaying the down or having the penalty assessed on the succeeding spot (next series in OT) (Rule 8-4-3).

No carryover provisions for penalties that occur during a safety (although quarter will not be extended for the kickoff).

Make sense? I think you are trying to bundle all scoring plays into one, and that is just not supported by rule.

Yes, it makes sense, and no, I wasn't trying to bundle all scoring plays into one. Like I posted earlier, I misunderstood your statement " The wording in Rule 8-2-2 is subsequent kickoff, which precludes its use in OT" to mean that you thought there was no carryover provision at all in OT. My bad! Sorry for causing all the confusion, but I was pretty sure, as you have mentioned, that there were certain times in OT when a team could "take the score and have the penalty applied at the succeeding spot," namely, the try. You confirmed that and explained it very well, thank you.

I think the "suceeding spot" phrase is confusing some. I.E. the KO can be and is a "succeeding spot" so to speak in some cases.

If I understand the rule, once we are in OT nothing changes in terms of what can carry over to the next OT. That is, only fouls on try or FG during OT can be carried over to next OT series.

Correct. That is how I understand it.

Just so I'm crystal clear on this.

In the first series of overtime Team A scores and Team B is called for a facemask foul. Team A's options are: decline, assess on the PAT, or assess on Team B's series (which is the second half of the first overtime)?

However, if the same situation occurs during the second series of the first overtime the only options are declination or assessment on the PAT.

Do I understand this correctly?

Assuming that A's score is a TD, that sounds correct.

Yes. In my scenario, A scores a TD.

Is it just me, or does this seem to tip the competitive balance in A's favor? Consider this scenario occuring in an overtime:

In the first series of the overtime, Team A scores a TD. On the scoring play, B commits DPI. Team A has 3 options and in this instance they choose to enforce the penalty at the beginning of Team B's overtime series. Team A is successful kicking for point and now lead by 7.

Now Team B is looking at 1st and goal from the 25 for their overtime series.

Let's say B is able to score a TD. On that scoring play, A is flagged for at 15-yard facemask. (I know Team A is usually the team on offense, but in order to keep things clear, I kept the original designations.) Team B is only afforded two options, correct? Decline, or enforce on the try since there is no guarantee of a 2nd overtime.

I'm just saying it seems a little unfair that Team A has the ability to back up their opponent for their overtime series, yet Team B doesn't have that same choice.

Not according to what the others have posted. According to 8-2-2,&,3, the only options in either case are accept and replay,(dumb), decline, or assess on the PAT, because the wording specifically says, "subsequent kickoff" and there is no "subsequent kickoff" in OT.

No only if A's score was a FG, not a TD... and no, this doesn't favor any team --- the team that goes first in the first "inning" goes last in the second.

Okay. Pardon my confusion and accept my thanks for helping me clear this up.

In OT, a penalty by the defense on a TD can NEVER be assessed on the ensuing series. Is that a true statement?

You have to be careful with statements like never and always but I can't think of a scenario that would be an exemption.

A foul on a TD scoring play can be assessed on the PAT or the subsequent kickoff, IF there is a subsequent kickoff.

In OT, there are no kickoffs. so the penalty must be assessed on the PAT.

Exactly. You can only enforce a defensive foul during an OT TD on the try because you can't enforce it on the subsequent kickoff.

You can enforce a foul during an OT FG to the succeeding spot which would be where the defense next snaps the ball. So it could be 1st and goal from the 15 or 20 or 25 or worse when B becomes A (depending on your state's OT rules).

I am convinced this is correct. no kickoff therefore fouls on TD can only be enforced on PAT.

If foul by B on successful try or FG in OT then have option of making "B" start 1st and goal form 15, 20 or 25 dpeening on the foul.

Okay. Thanks for straightening me out.

Now. About my competitive balance issue. (Which sounds like a medical condition.)

If, in the first "half" of an overtime, Team A scores a FG and Team B fouls, Team B will probably be facing a 1st and goal from the 15, 20, or 25. If, in the bottom "half" of the overtime, Team B scores a successful FG to tie the game, Team B could then choose to enforce the penalty at the succeeding spot. Which, depending on what team chooses what, could translate in to a 1st and goal from the 15, 20 or 25, or, perhaps the 5 should Team B wind up on defense the first "half" of the next overtime.

Is that a proper summation?

Right. If the FG ties the game after each team has a series then it's either going to be first and long for the offending team or first and short for the offended team.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

A can move the convert to the B-1, or require B to start the bottom of the inning from the 50.