Play
 

A4/10 @ 50.

A21 runs to the B30 where he is tackled. During his run, A21 taunts a B player before being tackled. UC against A21 during a live ball.

I've got A 1/10 @ B45.

Agree/disagree?

What are the other options?

Some fellow officials want to go A 4/5 from the B45.

Agree. If he's past the LTG when the play ends (and he was), it's going to be 1st-&-10 after administration of any dead ball (or LBTDB) fouls.

One of the rules I think needs changing. You consider any deadball fouls by B for achieving the line to gain, but not those by A. So if you have a deadball by B (that gets A past the line to gain) followed by another by A, A still is awarded the first down before enforcing their foul - plus they get it first and 10. The penalties don't match the fouls, in my opinion. Also hard to explain to a coach! :)

I don't think it's that hard at all. It's an LED foul. We're always going to enforce it from the succeeding spot.

Not true. Let's change the play.

A4/10 @ 50.

A21 runs to the B41 where he is tackled. During his run, B21 taunts an A player before being tackled. USC against B21 during a live ball.

A is short of the 1st down, ball is awarded B, 15 yard penalty is assessed. 1st & 10 at the B26 for B.

There's the equity you're looking for.

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.

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.

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.

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?

+1

Couldn't care less. :D

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.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

10 yards applied from end of play. Team A 1D/10 @ B-40.

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.