Play

[wisref2]

Imagine (as we always end up doing).....

A is tackled at the 30 to make it 2nd and 14. B taunts A. Several second later (obviously not at the same time), A taunts B.

Penalize B 15 yards to the 45 where it becomes 1st and 10.

Penalize A 15 yards back to the 30. It is 1st and 10 at the same place where it was 2nd and 14 just a few seconds ago.

Both were penalized 15 for the same infraction, yet A was rewarded with a first down.

Had that once - while I was enforcing it all, I told the B coach that he was going to have questions about what was happening and I would be right over to explain it as soon as I was done. I explained the rule - he didn't understand why A was rewarded for doing the same thing his team was penalized for. My best explanation? "Coach, I know, and I agree it doesn't seem to make sense. I just did a presentation on this rule at a clinic last week, so I know I got it right." That satisfied him.

[Adam]

Disagree. A was not rewarded for taunting. A was rewarded for B's taunt. B was then rewarded, separately, for A's taunt. If A's taunt had come after the first flag was marked off, he wouldn't have thought twice about it.

They were both punished separately.

[wisref2]

As an official, I agree. But you can understand why a coach would be confused about the disparity of two fouls in the same dead ball period resulting in a first down for one of the teams - rather than something like offsetting them, or, better yet, considering both B and A fouls before establishing if A has reached the line to gain.

[golfnref]

Originally Posted by wisref2

As an official, I agree. But you can understand why a coach would be confused about the disparity of two fouls in the same dead ball period resulting in a first down for one of the teams - rather than something like offsetting them, or, better yet, considering both B and A fouls before establishing if A has reached the line to gain.

That's why we are officials and they are coaches. We know the rules, they are supposed to do the x's and o's.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by wisref2

As an official, I agree. But you can understand why a coach would be confused about the disparity of two fouls in the same dead ball period resulting in a first down for one of the teams - rather than something like offsetting them, or, better yet, considering both B and A fouls before establishing if A has reached the line to gain.

When would you cut it off and stop waiting for A to foul?

1. After the B foul is announced?

2. After the penalty is marched off?

3. After the chains are picked up?

There has to be some point of demarcation.

Maybe have these sorts of A dead ball fouls result in a 1/25?

[BktBallRef]

Originally Posted by Adam

Disagree. A was not rewarded for taunting. A was rewarded for B's taunt. B was then rewarded, separately, for A's taunt. If A's taunt had come after the first flag was marked off, he wouldn't have thought twice about it.

They were both punished separately.

+1

Originally Posted by wisref2

As an official, I agree. But you can understand why a coach would be confused about the disparity of two fouls in the same dead ball period resulting in a first down for one of the teams - rather than something like offsetting them, or, better yet, considering both B and A fouls before establishing if A has reached the line to gain.

Couldn't care less.

Coaches are biased, they're supposed to feel that way. They're always going to feel that way. That doesn't mean the rules are wrong. If you're saying the way that almost simultaneous dead ball fouls are penalized is wrong, I agree. But that's a different issue than the discussion we started with.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

Disagree. A was not rewarded for taunting. A was rewarded for B's taunt. B was then rewarded, separately, for A's taunt. If A's taunt had come after the first flag was marked off, he wouldn't have thought twice about it.

They were both punished separately.

Exactly. The only way it'd be otherwise was if it was like in the 1930s, when the line to gain was moved along with penalties for non-tactical fouls like this, so that you couldn't get a first down for a USC penalty.

[MD Longhorn]

I understand this is the way the book tells us to administer these fouls. However, I've never liked it. On dead ball fouls that occur after a first down was gained, the chains should not move with the foul.

Think of it logically.

3rd and 10 from the A-20, they gain 15. At that moment, they've gained a first down, from the 35. Then they earn a dead ball 15-yarder. It SHOULD BE (not by rule, I know...) 1st and 25 from the 20. There is a logical inconsistency in giving the 1st down when they earned it, but then not resetting the chains until after the DBF.

Consider the same thing, but the 15-yarder occurs after we've set the chains. NOW it's 1st and 25. Why should the application of the penalty depend on how quickly 1 official signals the RFP or 3 non-players happen to move their equipment? Either the foul occurred DURING the down, or AFTER the down... we're treating it halfway one way and halfway the other. Dumb.

[maven]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Think of it logically.

3rd and 10 from the A-20, they gain 15. At that moment, they've gained a first down, from the 35. Then they earn a dead ball 15-yarder. It SHOULD BE (not by rule, I know...) 1st and 25 from the 20. There is a logical inconsistency in giving the 1st down when they earned it, but then not resetting the chains until after the DBF.

Consider the same thing, but the 15-yarder occurs after we've set the chains. NOW it's 1st and 25. Why should the application of the penalty depend on how quickly 1 official signals the RFP or 3 non-players happen to move their equipment? Either the foul occurred DURING the down, or AFTER the down... we're treating it halfway one way and halfway the other. Dumb.

Short answer to the highlighted question: because that's when the new series begins.

Longer answer: we have 3 real-world time intervals (not clock-time) to consider:

1. The time before a series ends (for instance, by reaching or failing to reach the LTG).
2. The time after a series ends and the new series begins.
3. The time after a new series begins.

In the context of your question, there are no dead ball fouls during (1), because the ball is live.

So dead ball fouls occur during (2) and (3), and they are penalized accordingly.

You might not like how it works, but it's certainly logically consistent.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by maven

Short answer to the highlighted question: because that's when the new series begins.

Longer answer: we have 3 real-world time intervals (not clock-time) to consider:

1. The time before a series ends (for instance, by reaching or failing to reach the LTG).
2. The time after a series ends and the new series begins.
3. The time after a new series begins.

In the context of your question, there are no dead ball fouls during (1), because the ball is live.

So dead ball fouls occur during (2) and (3), and they are penalized accordingly.

You might not like how it works, but it's certainly logically consistent.

Put that way, I guess my point is that item number 2 should not exist. The new series should begin the instant the old one ends.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I understand this is the way the book tells us to administer these fouls. However, I've never liked it. On dead ball fouls that occur after a first down was gained, the chains should not move with the foul.

That's the way it used to be. The rulesmakers felt that 1st-and-25 was basically a turnover, and too severe for a "heat of the moment" foul just after the play ended.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CT1

That's the way it used to be. The rulesmakers felt that 1st-and-25 was basically a turnover, and too severe for a "heat of the moment" foul just after the play ended.

Another reason why an all-but-one should never be marked off from behind the line of scrimmage (the NCAA rule is good here, IMO), but that's an argument for another thread.

[RadioBlue]

Originally Posted by wisref2

Imagine (as we always end up doing).....

A is tackled at the 30 to make it 2nd and 14. B taunts A. Several second later (obviously not at the same time), A taunts B.

Penalize B 15 yards to the 45 where it becomes 1st and 10.

Penalize A 15 yards back to the 30. It is 1st and 10 at the same place where it was 2nd and 14 just a few seconds ago.

Both were penalized 15 for the same infraction, yet A was rewarded with a first down.

Don't know what happened exactly in this instance, but if something like this were to happen in my game, I think I would lean toward calling this simultaneous if at all possible. (Or, be unable to discern which one came first. ) However, if these fouls CLEARLY happened one, then the other ... then it is what it is.

[wisref2]

Originally Posted by RadioBlue

Don't know what happened exactly in this instance, but if something like this were to happen in my game, I think I would lean toward calling this simultaneous if at all possible. (Or, be unable to discern which one came first. ) However, if these fouls CLEARLY happened one, then the other ... then it is what it is.

Yes, that's the way to do it if you can. In this case, I couldn't fake it.

Going back to the not resetting the chains after a dead ball foul before the RFP would go a long way - good point.