snap over punters head----safety?

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think jchamp is proposing that instead of kicking the ball on the ground, the better play is to pick the ball up and either a) punt if not under pressure or b) throw a backwards pass out of the end zone.

He's proposing that while b) is still a safety, it is not a penalty which would afford A an opportunity to replay the down if B fouled during it.

I don't know if he's correct in his assessment of the result or not.

Wasn't that my point in post #4?

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by Eastshire

I think jchamp is proposing that instead of kicking the ball on the ground, the better play is to pick the ball up and either a) punt if not under pressure or b) throw a backwards pass out of the end zone.

He's proposing that while b) is still a safety, it is not a penalty which would afford A an opportunity to replay the down if B fouled during it.

I don't know if he's correct in his assessment of the result or not.

That was precisely my point. If B fouls during the down, A has the opportunity that comes from it. The best that can happen if A fouls is they replay the down just as it was, 4th & whatever. If A does not foul, the best that can happen is B fouls and the result of the enforcement is 1st down. It's pretty simple, if you can avoid committing a foul, you do so. There are very few situations in which the result of fouling is preferable to not fouling. This is not one of them.

[Wolverine]

This actually happened TWICE in our game last night in Georgia.

First play: Snap over punters head. Punter kicks ball out of the EZ from the 3 yd line. Flag on play for illegal kicking. Result: Safety with no option to decline penalty.

Second Play: Snap over punters head. Punter scoops ball at the 2 yd line and throws out of the back of the EZ with his plant foot inside the one. Flag on play for intentional grounding. Result: Safety... again with no option to decline penalty.

Were these calls correct?

[hawktalk]

Intentional grounding because?????

[Wolverine]

Exactly. The ball was thrown backwards from the field of play through the end zone. Nevertheless, grounding was the call from the white hat. We should have been able to decline, right?

[maven]

Originally Posted by Wolverine

This actually happened TWICE in our game last night in Georgia.

First play: Snap over punters head. Punter kicks ball out of the EZ from the 3 yd line. Flag on play for illegal kicking. Result: Safety with no option to decline penalty.

Second Play: Snap over punters head. Punter scoops ball at the 2 yd line and throws out of the back of the EZ with his plant foot inside the one. Flag on play for intentional grounding. Result: Safety... again with no option to decline penalty.

Were these calls correct?

1. Enforcement seems incorrect: if the foul occurred in the field of play, the penalty is not a safety, though the result of the play is. Your options should have been accept (half the distance from the spot of the kick, replay the down) or a decline (result of the play was a safety).

2. I'd have to know more to assess whether that's a good IG call. If the passer was in the field of play when he committed the foul, the penalty is not a safety, though the result of the play is. If that was the case, your options should have been: accept (half the distance from the spot of the foul, LOD), or decline (safety). OTOH, if the foul occurred in the EZ, again you'd have an option between a safety or a safety.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by maven

1. Enforcement seems incorrect: if the foul occurred in the field of play, the penalty is not a safety, though the result of the play is. Your options should have been accept (half the distance from the spot of the kick, replay the down) or a decline (result of the play was a safety).

2. I'd have to know more to assess whether that's a good IG call. If the passer was in the field of play when he committed the foul, the penalty is not a safety, though the result of the play is. If that was the case, your options should have been: accept (half the distance from the spot of the foul, LOD), or decline (safety). OTOH, if the foul occurred in the EZ, again you'd have an option between a safety or a safety.

Correct for Play 1.

Play #2 is not IG. It's simply a backwards pass, which is treated as a fumble in NFHS rules.

[maven]

Originally Posted by CT1

Correct for Play 1.

Play #2 is not IG. It's simply a backwards pass, which is treated as a fumble in NFHS rules.

One of the things I'd have to know is whether it was NFHS rules.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by maven

One of the things I'd have to know is whether it was NFHS rules.

Well, he said it happened in Georgia.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Wolverine

This actually happened TWICE in our game last night in Georgia.

First play: Snap over punters head. Punter kicks ball out of the EZ from the 3 yd line. Flag on play for illegal kicking. Result: Safety with no option to decline penalty.

Second Play: Snap over punters head. Punter scoops ball at the 2 yd line and throws out of the back of the EZ with his plant foot inside the one. Flag on play for intentional grounding. Result: Safety... again with no option to decline penalty.

Were these calls correct?

Both are wrong.

First play: Illegal kick.
Accept the penalty: Replay the down from the 1 1/2 yard line.
Decline the penalty: Safety.

Second play: Legal play, safety. No option.

Originally Posted by CT1

Correct for Play 1.

Not true. Foul occurs at the 3 yard line.

Originally Posted by maven

2. I'd have to know more to assess whether that's a good IG call. If the passer was in the field of play when he committed the foul, the penalty is not a safety, though the result of the play is. If that was the case, your options should have been: accept (half the distance from the spot of the foul, LOD), or decline (safety). OTOH, if the foul occurred in the EZ, again you'd have an option between a safety or a safety.

There is no foul. You can't have IG on a backwards pass. Legal play.

[maven]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

There is no foul. You can't have IG on a backwards pass. Legal play.

This statement is correct for NFHS rules. It's a fair assumption that the OP was using NFHS rules, but only an assumption. So it's worth recognizing that under other rules, a backwards pass CAN be IG.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by maven

This statement is correct for NFHS rules. It's a fair assumption that the OP was using NFHS rules, but only an assumption. So it's worth recognizing that under other rules, a backwards pass CAN be IG.

#1, the play occurred on a Friday night in Georgia. I don't think it's much of an assumption that this game was played under NFHS rules.

#2, I'm dying to know under what rules can intentional grounding be called on a backwards pass?

[WestCoaster]

Originally Posted by Wolverine

This actually happened TWICE in our game last night in Georgia.

First play: Snap over punters head. Punter kicks ball out of the EZ from the 3 yd line. Flag on play for illegal kicking. Result: Safety with no option to decline penalty.

Second Play: Snap over punters head. Punter scoops ball at the 2 yd line and throws out of the back of the EZ with his plant foot inside the one. Flag on play for intentional grounding. Result: Safety... again with no option to decline penalty.

Were these calls correct?

In #2 not only is your call incorrect, the choices given to R, given the call, were also incorrect. By calling (incorrectly) IG, you now have the option of R declining and taking the safety, or accepting the penalty from the 2 half the distance to the goal, plus loss of down, which would give R the ball first and ten from the one. It's a good thing you didn't offer them the correct choices. That would have been an egregious error.

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by WestCoaster

In #2 not only is your call incorrect, the choices given to R, given the call, were also incorrect. By calling (incorrectly) IG, you now have the option of R declining and taking the safety, or accepting the penalty from the 2 half the distance to the goal, plus loss of down, which would give R the ball first and ten from the one. It's a good thing you didn't offer them the correct choices. That would have been an egregious error.

Pretty sure Wolverine is not an official.

[WestCoaster]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

Pretty sure Wolverine is not an official.

So he was the one receiving the wrong information, not handing it out? I feel better for him already.