The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Rule Reference Question - OPI on try (https://forum.officiating.com/football/59487-rule-reference-question-opi-try.html)

IMSports007 Thu Oct 21, 2010 09:01am
Rule Reference Question - OPI on try
 
Quick question.

Try... OPI on offense.

Do we mark off any yardage on the kickoff. A has lost the right to replay the try with the loss of down penatly.

Where can I find reference to this in the rulebook?

JugglingReferee Thu Oct 21, 2010 09:44am
Canadian Ruling
 
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMSports007 (Post 697423)
Quick question.

Try... OPI on offense.

Do we mark off any yardage on the kickoff. A has lost the right to replay the try with the loss of down penatly.

Where can I find reference to this in the rulebook?
CANADIAN RULING:

OPI on a convert:

If the attempt is good, cancel the score and re-try the convert from the previous spot (15 on the KO) or from the previous spot minus 15 yards (regular KO).

If the attempt is NOT good, put the 15 on the KO. No option to re-try the convert.

jTheUmp Thu Oct 21, 2010 09:48am
I doubt you'll find any specific reference to OPI-on-a-try in the rulebook, but it hardly matters.

Think about it: If you have OPI during a try, the following scenarios can occur (assuming NFHS ruleset):
1) OPI, try is converted.
2a) OPI, try is not converted. Team B accepts the penalty.
2b) OPI, try is not converted, Team B declines the penalty.

In #1, Team B will obviously accept the penalty, 15 yards + loss of down, thus ending the try.
In #2a, Team B accepts the penalty, 15 yards + loss of down, thus ending the try.
In #2B, Team B declines the penalty, thus ending the try.

Notice that #2a and #2b are, for all intents and purposes, identical.

IMSports007 Thu Oct 21, 2010 09:56am
Well
 
Yea... i got that info...

Is there any way the OPI becomes a succeeding spot on a try where we would go to the kickoff and mark off 15 on the offense?

Welpe Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:01am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMSports007 (Post 697448)
Yea... i got that info...

Is there any way the OPI becomes a succeeding spot on a try where we would go to the kickoff and mark off 15 on the offense?
No. The penalty includes loss of down so the try is unsuccessful. There is no rule provision for enforcing OPI from the succeeding spot.

IMSports007 Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:02am
Thanks Welpe...

Is there any reference to this in the rulebook?

jTheUmp Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rule 10.4.5
ART. 5 . . . The basic spot is the succeeding spot:
a. For an unsportsmanlike foul.
b. For a dead-ball foul.
c. For a nonplayer foul.
d. When the final result is a touchback.
Is OPI one of these types of fouls?

Rich Thu Oct 21, 2010 10:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by jTheUmp (Post 697453)
Is OPI one of these types of fouls?
And to pile on, is this foul one by the opponent of the scoring team?

Not everything is specifically defined and spelled out. However, OPI is only a bit different because of the LOD provision. Because of the LOD, the team does not get to replay the try.

If it makes you feel better, mark off 15 from the previous spot and then tell A they can't replay the try. :D

Personally, I'd be thrilled if they got rid of the LOD provision.

ppaltice Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:13am
Quote:
Originally Posted by IMSports007 (Post 697451)
Thanks Welpe...

Is there any reference to this in the rulebook?
Best thing to do in these cases is to go to the Case Book.

Rule 8-3-4: If during a successful try, a loss of down foul by A occurs, there is no score and no replay.

Rule 8-3-6: If during an unsuccessful try, a foul by A occurs, the penalty is obviously declined, the results of the play stands and there is no replay.

Case 8.3.2.C: During a try, A1 passes complete to A2 in the end zone and (b) A4 interfered with B1. RULING: In (b), the loss of down foul by A4 dictates that no points are scored, and no replay.

jTheUmp Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697458)
Personally, I'd be thrilled if they got rid of the LOD provision.
Agreed. I've come to think of OPI (in FED) as the "Drive Death Penalty", because it's the harshest punishment (in terms of yardage/LOD) in the entire rulebook.

And this discussion isn't just abstract for me either; our game last Friday featured two OPI calls, one of which was actually on a "successful" try.

(FWIW, the game in question also had 928 yards of offense, 20+ penalties, a try that was attempted 4 times, a hurdling call (by me), and USC fouls on both benches.)

Mike L Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:40am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697458)
And to pile on, is this foul one by the opponent of the scoring team?

Not everything is specifically defined and spelled out. However, OPI is only a bit different because of the LOD provision. Because of the LOD, the team does not get to replay the try.

If it makes you feel better, mark off 15 from the previous spot and then tell A they can't replay the try. :D

Personally, I'd be thrilled if they got rid of the LOD provision.
I'd just say read rule 8-3 which gives all the possibilities of what to do with a successful or unsuccessful try. Carrying over an OPI penalty to the kick off is not one of the options.

As for OPI, my opinion is just make it a 5 yd with LOD, just like all the other LOD A fouls.

Rich Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike L (Post 697468)
I'd just say read rule 8-3 which gives all the possibilities of what to do with a successful or unsuccessful try. Carrying over an OPI penalty to the kick off is not one of the options.

As for OPI, my opinion is just make it a 5 yd with LOD, just like all the other LOD A fouls.
Make it a 15 yard, repeat the down foul. That way, if the pass is incomplete the offense doesn't get penalized twice and the defense actually has to make a choice.

bkdow Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:12pm
Why would you give a team a second chance to be successful on a play where they were the ones to potentially take the ball out of the other team's hands? What if the OPI (not on a try) was the only reason the defense didn't intercept and run for a touchdown.

You now want to just mark of 15 and give them another chance to replay the down that they screwed up in the first place? IMHO, I think this is a great enforcement of an OPI. I would agree with shortening the distance but they should always lose the down.

Robert Goodman Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:13pm
And I say make PI during the pass first down to the nonoffending team at the spot of the foul. OPI before the pass, just LOD, previous spot.

Rich Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by bkdow (Post 697472)
Why would you give a team a second chance to be successful on a play where they were the ones to potentially take the ball out of the other team's hands? What if the OPI (not on a try) was the only reason the defense didn't intercept and run for a touchdown.

You now want to just mark of 15 and give them another chance to replay the down that they screwed up in the first place? IMHO, I think this is a great enforcement of an OPI. I would agree with shortening the distance but they should always lose the down.
If the pass is incomplete, then they can either back them up yardage and replay the down or decline the penalty and the down counts with no yardage. Why should they get *both*?

Assuming a pick-six is as unrealistic as me saying that a holding penalty kept a defender from stripping a ball and returning the fumble for a TD.

MD Longhorn Thu Oct 21, 2010 12:56pm
There should be a difference between OPI that is merely blocking downfield, and OPI that potentially prevents an interception. Seems the former should be penalized much less severely (15 and replay or 5 and LOD both make sense to me), but the latter is penalized harshly and correctly.

Mike L Thu Oct 21, 2010 01:42pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697478)
If the pass is incomplete, then they can either back them up yardage and replay the down or decline the penalty and the down counts with no yardage. Why should they get *both*?

Assuming a pick-six is as unrealistic as me saying that a holding penalty kept a defender from stripping a ball and returning the fumble for a TD.
Are you willing to make the same argument for all the other LOD fouls too?

Rich Thu Oct 21, 2010 01:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike L (Post 697489)
Are you willing to make the same argument for all the other LOD fouls too?
Nope. Those are different kind of fouls.

ppaltice Thu Oct 21, 2010 04:24pm
I agree with Rich that OPI's penalty in NFHS is quite harsh. I would rather see it lose the LOD aspect (akin to other rule sets).

Also harsh is the hold behind the LOS (or fouls by A). I would not be surprised if these rules are revised in the future.

Rich Thu Oct 21, 2010 11:31pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by ppaltice (Post 697528)
I agree with Rich that OPI's penalty in NFHS is quite harsh. I would rather see it lose the LOD aspect (akin to other rule sets).

Also harsh is the hold behind the LOS (or fouls by A). I would not be surprised if these rules are revised in the future.
This is another foul I'd love to them to visit. A hold 5-6 yards behind the line is almost a guaranteed punt where I work. Previous spot, as in the NCAA/NFL is a much better way of not giving the double whammy to a team.

Cobra Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:42am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697582)
This is another foul I'd love to them to visit. A hold 5-6 yards behind the line is almost a guaranteed punt where I work. Previous spot, as in the NCAA/NFL is a much better way of not giving the double whammy to a team.
It isn't a double whammy, the down is replayed. If there wasn't a hold then the defense could have tackled the QB for a 9-10 yard loss.

Currently it would be 1st and 25-26 with the hold, or 2nd and 19-20 without the hold.

Your change would be 1st and 20 with the hold, 2nd and 19-20 without the hold. Basically the ball will be in the same spot. The offense is gaining an advantage by fouling. If a guy is going to get a sack it is better for the offense to just hold him so that the down will be repeated.

Rich Fri Oct 22, 2010 01:05am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra (Post 697583)
It isn't a double whammy, the down is replayed. If there wasn't a hold then the defense could have tackled the QB for a 9-10 yard loss.

Currently it would be 1st and 25-26 with the hold, or 2nd and 19-20 without the hold.

Your change would be 1st and 20 with the hold, 2nd and 19-20 without the hold. Basically the ball will be in the same spot. The offense is gaining an advantage by fouling. If a guy is going to get a sack it is better for the offense to just hold him so that the down will be repeated.
It doesn't necessarily hold that the defender is going to get a sack on the play.

Besides, if it's 2nd and 19 it makes sense for the defense to decline the penalty. If the player is brought down 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage, why tack a hold on top of it?

Finally, previous spot enforcement works well in the other codes. 1st and 26 just means a punt in most HS games. It's too punitive. I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly, but it's just something I've thought for some time.

bisonlj Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:29am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697586)
It doesn't necessarily hold that the defender is going to get a sack on the play.

Besides, if it's 2nd and 19 it makes sense for the defense to decline the penalty. If the player is brought down 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage, why tack a hold on top of it?

Finally, previous spot enforcement works well in the other codes. 1st and 26 just means a punt in most HS games. It's too punitive. I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly, but it's just something I've thought for some time.
I agree Rich. This is one that confuses a lot of people who watch college and NFL games. They think we screwed them. Not that making fans and coaches happy is a reason to change a rule but it would make more sense.

Cobra Fri Oct 22, 2010 12:30pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697586)
It doesn't necessarily hold that the defender is going to get a sack on the play.

Besides, if it's 2nd and 19 it makes sense for the defense to decline the penalty. If the player is brought down 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage, why tack a hold on top of it?
That is a good reason to keep it as it is. The basic spot is the end of the run so it would be 2nd and 19 or 1st and 29. Your way it would be 2nd and 19 or 1st and 20. Essentially it is a one yard penalty. If the blocker thinks he is going to give up a sack he might as well just hold the guy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697586)
Finally, previous spot enforcement works well in the other codes. 1st and 26 just means a punt in most HS games. It's too punitive. I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly, but it's just something I've thought for some time.
But the other codes give more of an advantage to the offense while NF rules remain more balanced. Read the part below from the Football Handbook, other rule codes allow the QB to throw the ball away and it woks ok for them, but it is just another way of favoring the offense. I prefer the NF way.

When the defensive team forces a passer into a position from which he cannot safely deliver the ball to an eligible teammate and he is unable to escape the defensive confinement, the defensive team has accomplished its objective. If the passer is permitted to intentionally incomplete a forward pass without penalty, except for the immediate “spiking,” and thus avoid loss of yardage, the official by his poor judgment or lack of it, has taken away an advantage which was fairly earned.

Rich Fri Oct 22, 2010 02:14pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cobra (Post 697629)
That is a good reason to keep it as it is. The basic spot is the end of the run so it would be 2nd and 19 or 1st and 29. Your way it would be 2nd and 19 or 1st and 20. Essentially it is a one yard penalty. If the blocker thinks he is going to give up a sack he might as well just hold the guy.



But the other codes give more of an advantage to the offense while NF rules remain more balanced. Read the part below from the Football Handbook, other rule codes allow the QB to throw the ball away and it woks ok for them, but it is just another way of favoring the offense. I prefer the NF way.

When the defensive team forces a passer into a position from which he cannot safely deliver the ball to an eligible teammate and he is unable to escape the defensive confinement, the defensive team has accomplished its objective. If the passer is permitted to intentionally incomplete a forward pass without penalty, except for the immediate “spiking,” and thus avoid loss of yardage, the official by his poor judgment or lack of it, has taken away an advantage which was fairly earned.
It may just be a philosophical difference. I would prefer tilting the scales in favor of the offense a bit more at the HS level.

I would also eliminate the dead ball enforcement on simple encroachment. No reason that the defense shouldn't have a chance to get back and no reason the offense shouldn't get a free play in that situation (assuming the encroachment is on the defense, which is the case a majority of the time).

Robert Goodman Fri Oct 22, 2010 10:50pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697478)
If the pass is incomplete, then they can either back them up yardage and replay the down or decline the penalty and the down counts with no yardage. Why should they get *both*?

Assuming a pick-six is as unrealistic as me saying that a holding penalty kept a defender from stripping a ball and returning the fumble for a TD.
Yes, assuming a pick-six is unrealistic -- but assuming a pick is realistic, if it's the type of interference that occurs during the pass. I don't think it was ever the rule in Fed, but for a while in NCAA it was loss of ball.

Robert Goodman Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:02pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697586)
It doesn't necessarily hold that the defender is going to get a sack on the play.
Nor that a foul by the offense on any other kind of play prevented a certain tackle.
Quote:
Besides, if it's 2nd and 19 it makes sense for the defense to decline the penalty. If the player is brought down 9 yards behind the line of scrimmage, why tack a hold on top of it?

Finally, previous spot enforcement works well in the other codes. 1st and 26 just means a punt in most HS games. It's too punitive. I don't expect everyone to agree, certainly, but it's just something I've thought for some time.
But would you believe that until about 40 yrs. ago even in the pros, the ordinary all-but-1 enforcement was used even on pass plays -- and that it was a 15 yard penalty? It wasn't uncommon for illegal use of hands to occur 5 yards behind the previous spot, resulting in repeating the down 20 yards back of the previous spot. (And there was a lot less legal use of the hands then.)

All repeat-the-down distance penalties involve some imagination about what would've happened absent the foul, and there is no justice. In the case mentioned above, eventually the rules makers decided that on an apparent pass play, if A1 hadn't held B1, A2 would've gotten off a not-quite-bad-enough-to-be-grounding incomplete pass, so that the previous spot would be the basis for enforcement.

Robert Goodman Fri Oct 22, 2010 11:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichMSN (Post 697640)
I would also eliminate the dead ball enforcement on simple encroachment. No reason that the defense shouldn't have a chance to get back and no reason the offense shouldn't get a free play in that situation (assuming the encroachment is on the defense, which is the case a majority of the time).
What happens when one player enters the neutral zone and blocks the view of the ball by an opponent at some distance, who then enters the neutral zone as well? In NCAA if the ball is then snapped, it's allowed to be put in play, but the play is futile and the original encroacher gets off when the fouls offset. And if the original encroacher gets back and the ball is snapped, it's even worse.

No such problem on a free kick, however.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:36am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1