Dead Ball foul or Roughing or neither

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

LOTS of things are illegal on the street, but ok inside a game.

Well, duh! And lots of things are illegal during one interval of a game, and illegal during another interval.

I don't believe I was saying this was a live ball foul.

But you were implying it should be a foul during a dead ball interval because it would've been one during a live ball interval.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Well, duh! And lots of things are illegal during one interval of a game, and illegal during another interval.

But you were implying it should be a foul during a dead ball interval because it would've been one during a live ball interval.

Here's what I'm saying in a nutshell.

The contact was obviously WAY after the whistle - and should be a dead ball foul.

There are times, when (for whatever reason) it is not clear to the player that the play is dead (like in this case, the whistle was late or weak), the excuse is made that a foul shouldn't be one because he didn't know the play was dead and whatever he did would have been okay if the play was not dead.

In this case, even THAT argument can not be made, because what he did would have been a foul even if the ball had been live.

[Adam]

It seems to me the confusion lies with where to draw the line on ignoring dead ball contact.

Examples (for my own clarification as a rookie FB official):
1. The ball is snapped, but the HL has an encroachment foul on the defense. The whistle is late, and immediately after the whistle, A67 holds B99. Ignore the DB contact?

I think so.

2. The ball is snapped, but the U has a snap infraction. Immediately after the whistle, B97 grabs the facemask of an offensive lineman. Ignore the DB contact?

I doubt it.

3. The ball is snapped in a punt formation, but the LJ has a false start on the wing. Immediately after the snap and before the whistle, the B99 roughs the snapper. Ignore the DB contact?

I don't know.

In basketball, DB contact is ignored if it's not intentional or flagrant, and I think I'm trying in vain to apply that standard to football.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

Here's what I'm saying in a nutshell.

The contact was obviously WAY after the whistle

How do you figure that from what's been written here?

If it was obviously way after the whistle, then it makes no difference what kind of play it might've been had the ball been live; it's a personal foul, UR, possibly disqualifying. You might have 2 dead ball fouls penalized in order: delay of game on the kicker, then the personal foul.

There are times, when (for whatever reason) it is not clear to the player that the play is dead (like in this case, the whistle was late or weak), the excuse is made that a foul shouldn't be one because he didn't know the play was dead and whatever he did would have been okay if the play was not dead.

In this case, even THAT argument can not be made, because what he did would have been a foul even if the ball had been live.

But sports officiating doesn't work like law court, with choice of defenses. You're not allowed to stipulate stuff, handle legs of contingency separately.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

How do you figure that from what's been written here?

From this:

K lineman jumps and ball is snapped anyway. LJ whistles play-but slower/later than he should have. R rushes punter and roughes him on the kick.

If it was obviously way after the whistle, then it makes no difference what kind of play it might've been had the ball been live; it's a personal foul, UR, possibly disqualifying. You might have 2 dead ball fouls penalized in order: delay of game on the kicker, then the personal foul.


But sports officiating doesn't work like law court, with choice of defenses. You're not allowed to stipulate stuff, handle legs of contingency separately.

I try very hard to give you the benefit of the doubt that you are actually interested in discussing a play and determining what should happen - but I honestly have NO IDEA what your point is with the rest of this. And at this point I am not sure I care... add this to the inane "What if he goes around the field" nonsense and I'm sure I don't care.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Adam

It seems to me the confusion lies with where to draw the line on ignoring dead ball contact.

Examples (for my own clarification as a rookie FB official):
1. The ball is snapped, but the HL has an encroachment foul on the defense. The whistle is late, and immediately after the whistle, A67 holds B99. Ignore the DB contact?

I think so.

2. The ball is snapped, but the U has a snap infraction. Immediately after the whistle, B97 grabs the facemask of an offensive lineman. Ignore the DB contact?

I doubt it.

3. The ball is snapped in a punt formation, but the LJ has a false start on the wing. Immediately after the snap and before the whistle, the B99 roughs the snapper. Ignore the DB contact?

I don't know.

In basketball, DB contact is ignored if it's not intentional or flagrant, and I think I'm trying in vain to apply that standard to football.

1. We ignore holding in general unless it occurs at the point of attack and affects the play (or becomes a PF).

2. Yep, flag that. It's a PF, and it would be a foul even if the ball were live. No excuse!

3. Probably a PF here, since again the contact would have been illegal even with a live ball. But it can't be roughing the snapper because the ball was dead (no snap = no snapper). So no auto 1st down.

I ignore some DB contact, but generally not PF's. The situation is not quite comparable to basketball, since the amount and intensity of "normal" contact is quite different.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mbcrowder

From this:

From that you get the idea that the hit came WAY after the whistle? I think you infer too much. I doubt the story would even have been posted in that case, because then the call would've been obvious.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

From that you get the idea that the hit came WAY after the whistle? I think you infer too much. I doubt the story would even have been posted in that case, because then the call would've been obvious.

Read the OP again. He has a personal foul, he is just asking whether is roughing or a dead ball PF.

Anything else is your own inference.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Read the OP again. He has a personal foul, he is just asking whether is roughing or a dead ball PF.

Anything else is your own inference.

Read the subject line of the thread.