no captain on field/penalty declined automatically?
 

Was at an Alabama high school playoff game last night and saw this happen and couldn't believe it. There was a roughing the punter that would have given my team a first down but as the punting team was leaving the field and the offense was huddling up with the coach getting ready to go back out, there were no players that stayed out on the field. The ref looks toward our sideline for a few seconds then signals that the penalty is declined and first down for the other team. After the game someone told me that one of our coaches told him that the ref explained that since no captain was on the field to accept the penalty then it was an automatic decline. Anybody ever heard of this? In that situation where it is obvious that the penalty will be accepted, does he even have to ask someone?

Would never happen on my crew. That would basically be accepted automatically, not sure why you would really need a captain. We don't really worry about the captain numbers. If I need a player I just ask for a captain, I don't care which player walks up.

I understand and completely agree that it makes a lot of sense and is the common practice to insure that the offended coach is aware of the details surrounding a penalty, and when necessary can guide his Captain in making a penalty decision.

However to answer you questions, directly, why you need a captain is spelled out in NF: 2-32-5c "A Captain of a team is a player designated to represent his team during (c): Penalty decisions following a foul.".
Whether an official accepts it or not is immaterial, a Captain by virtue of that designation is due the respect attributed to that position at EVERY level. Much the same, as a Referee is entitled to the respect that is attributed to his designation.

On a very practical level a Captain who has been afforded the appropriate manner of respect, can prove to be a valuable ally should an ally be needed during a contest. Providing that respect costs NOTHING and can pay huge dividend.

Where is something that says it will be automatically declined if one of the captains is not on the field? Why not automatically accept?

I tend to not buy things coaches say. Coaches like to tell only part of the story and this I am sure is not that much of an exception.

Peace

One reason might be that it's simply polite. There may be a lot of young men, even at the pee-wee levels, who have worked hard to be selected as Captains and are deservedly proud of that recognition. What harm is there in paying them the respect the rule book says they are entitled to?

Again, I've got no problem in paying that respect in such a manner that the coach knows exactly what is being discussed and has opportunity, subtle at best, to influence and guide the Captain's decision. That can be an effective effort to eliminate unnecessary and cumbersome mistakes.

If we arbitrarily decide to ignore giving them the instructed opportunity to exercise the leadership and judgment they have been selected to provide, how are they going to learn how to do so?

What do we gain, a couple of seconds per penalty? Sometimes, regarding tradition, it's really better to just go with the flow than nit pick why.

The tradition/practice is to consult captains when there's an actual decision to be made. In the play in the OP, there is no real decision. Enforce the penalty and move on.

Good officials know when to save a few seconds and also know when to take a few extra seconds.

I understand that what "good officials" due in one part of the Country may not be exactly the same in other parts of the Country, so if you consider yourself a "good official" do what you think is right, and you should be just fine.

However, if you want get picky, the Officials Manual (5 Officials-Administering Penalties-Referee, Page 50) suggests;

4. Give options to Captain of offended team.
5. When Captain's most advantageous choice is obvious, quickly inform him.
6. When Captain does not respond, his silence shall be considered acceptance of obvious choice...

Sometimes it just boils down to whose best interests you're concerned about serving, and what is considered "standard" for your area.

So you have quoted lots of things telling us that we need to consult captains and give them respect.

I have yet to see anything where a penalty is automatically declined if a captain is not on the field.

it appears
 

it appears to me that the lack of a captain on the field would also be considered a non response by the captain, there fore an acceptance, certainly not an automatic declination

Absolutely. I don't know of many officials who would even offer and option in this case. Just inform the team of the outcome and get on with it.

Agreed. No option even required. I don't even think you need a preliminary signal here.

Out of curiosity, what teams were playing? I don't really need to know which team is "your" team.

I wasn't "telling you" anything, I merely suggested that there are a number of good reasons for discussing such matters with Captains. More than likely the area you work in has a standard, and you're likely best off adjusting to and following that standard.

I never suggested, nor do I believe there is any situation for automatically declining a penalty because the Captain is not on the field, although there are a number of situations where declining may be the very obvious choice. In those situations I've always spent those extra few seconds telling the Captain what was going on, suggesting the obvious choice and getting his concurrence. That sequence has yet to cause me any problem.

I just think if a Captain has earned an added level of respect, it's smart to give it to him. It's very possible we might need an added level of respect somewhat later from that same Captain.

my rule book does not mention an automatic decline if a captain is not on the field. Sounds like an over-reaching, agitated official if the facts are correct. I've seen my share both as a player and a fellow official.