Rules questions

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

No, because declining the penalty would leave the ball at the OOB spot. (That happens sometimes after an attempted on-side kick that goes OOB.)

When R chooses the 25-yard option, I give the signal, then point to the spot where the ball will be placed.

So when that option is chosen, a penalty is neither accepted, nor declined, nor canceled as part of a double foul situation. Meanwhile in NCAA, the same procedure seems to leave a penalty incomplete according to 10-1-1(a).

It would seem that to satisfy the administrative procedures in both codes, the penalties offered must be declined (or be signaled as canceled by the choice), so that this non-penalty may be chosen and enforcement following the foul completed.

[Welpe]

The foul for free kick out of bounds can offset another live ball foul.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So when that option is chosen, a penalty is neither accepted, nor declined, nor canceled as part of a double foul situation. Meanwhile in NCAA, the same procedure seems to leave a penalty incomplete according to 10-1-1(a).

It would seem that to satisfy the administrative procedures in both codes, the penalties offered must be declined (or be signaled as canceled by the choice), so that this non-penalty may be chosen and enforcement following the foul completed.

Incorrect. Declining this penalty means the ball goes to the spot that it went out of bounds. Accepting this penalty gives the receiving team two options (usually), one of which is taking the ball 30 (or 25) yards from the spot of the kick.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Incorrect. Declining this penalty means the ball goes to the spot that it went out of bounds. Accepting this penalty gives the receiving team two options (usually), one of which is taking the ball 30 (or 25) yards from the spot of the kick.

Then you're saying either option is a penalty. In that case, why doesn't the option specified above act like a distance penalty in terms of half-the-distance restriction? It's specified as a distance from a spot, isn't it?

Is the problem that the distance is specified toward the offended team's goal line rather than the offending team's (Fed 10-1-5, NCAA 10-2-6)? In that case, why deprive the offended team of an option? If the enforcement of that choice would put the ball on or behind their goal line, offer them a touchback.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then you're saying either option is a penalty. In that case, why doesn't the option specified above act like a distance penalty in terms of half-the-distance restriction? It's specified as a distance from a spot, isn't it?

Is the problem that the distance is specified toward the offended team's goal line rather than the offending team's (Fed 10-1-5, NCAA 10-2-6)? In that case, why deprive the offended team of an option? If the enforcement of that choice would put the ball on or behind their goal line, offer them a touchback.

Not sure what your motivation is for making this difficult. I'm not going to get into what it should be - because frankly it's fine the way it is and this happens so rarely.

I don't know what "either option is a penalty" means.

The PENALTY is "kick out of bounds". All 3 (or 2) options are enforcement options. Two of those 3 are not distance penalties. This is truly simple.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Not sure what your motivation is for making this difficult. I'm not going to get into what it should be - because frankly it's fine the way it is and this happens so rarely.

I don't know what "either option is a penalty" means.

The PENALTY is "kick out of bounds". All 3 (or 2) options are enforcement options. Two of those 3 are not distance penalties. This is truly simple.

OK, let's be technical. The FOUL is "free kick out of bounds". The PENALTY is one of the three choices, although a case could be made that taking the kick at the inbounds spot is really the receiving team declining the penalty. It's not listed that way, so let's say it's 3 choices.

Edited to add: I've always been taught (and this is backed up in the Redding guides and in NFHS case 6.1.8H) that if you can't enforce the distance penalty (25 yards in NFHS football), the option cannot be given. Period.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Rich

OK, let's be technical. The FOUL is "free kick out of bounds". The PENALTY is one of the three choices, although a case could be made that taking the kick at the inbounds spot is really the receiving team declining the penalty. It's not listed that way, so let's say it's 3 choices.

Edited to add: I've always been taught (and this is backed up in the Redding guides and in NFHS case 6.1.8H) that if you can't enforce the distance penalty (25 yards in NFHS football), the option cannot be given. Period.

OK, I stand corrected - and get Robert's post now. My apologies Robert. Still don't see why this is a big deal.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

OK, I stand corrected - and get Robert's post now. My apologies Robert. Still don't see why this is a big deal.

It's a big deal any time you need a case book, or the grape vine, to clarify something the rules state. It would be very easy for them to write this into the rules. In the meantime there's nothing in the rules themselves to justify that way of settling it (i.e. choice is off the table) rather than the touchback option I worked out above.

Meanwhile I found an obscure little provision that applies to the original question: NCAA 10-2-5(f): "Distance penalties for fouls by either team may not extend a team’s free kick restraining line behind its five-yard line. Penalties that would otherwise place the free kick restraining line behind a team’s five-yard line are enforced from the next succeeding spot." Funny word there, "extend"; maybe should be "result in" or "place" or "put" or the like. "Extend" there doesn't conform with other use of "extended" in their rules in the context of lines, planes, and zones. Actually the entire 1st sentence is made nearly (or arguably entirely) superfluous by the 2nd.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Rich

OK, let's be technical. The FOUL is "free kick out of bounds". The PENALTY is one of the three choices, although a case could be made that taking the kick at the inbounds spot is really the receiving team declining the penalty. It's not listed that way, so let's say it's 3 choices.

Edited to add: I've always been taught (and this is backed up in the Redding guides and in NFHS case 6.1.8H) that if you can't enforce the distance penalty (25 yards in NFHS football), the option cannot be given. Period.

But doesn't it make sense that every penalty can be declined? (Not accounting for strategic reasons to never decline some fouls.)

If the answer to my question is yes, the I submit that declining the foul for a KO OOB gives the receiving team it's worst option: which is where the ball went OB if behind the KO line + 25y.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It would seem that to satisfy the administrative procedures in both codes, the penalties offered must be declined (or be signaled as canceled by the choice), so that this non-penalty may be chosen and enforcement following the foul completed.

You seem to be hung up on signals, Robert. Were you a traffic cop in a past life?