![]() |
|
|||
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!
![]() |
|
|||
Quote:
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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
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.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
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.
|
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
||||
Quote:
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?
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners. |
|
|||
Quote:
Quote:
![]() 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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott "You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith |
|
|||
![]() Quote:
10 yards applied from end of play. Team A 1D/10 @ B-40.
__________________
Pope Francis |
|
|||
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.
|
![]() |
Bookmarks |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Public Address announcer/ Play by play | Terrapins Fan | Basketball | 34 | Sun Dec 13, 2009 12:20pm |
Force play or time play? | Rita C | Baseball | 44 | Sat Dec 05, 2009 10:12am |
was a force play, became a tag play ? | _Bruno_ | Baseball | 8 | Sun Aug 19, 2007 11:13am |
Play-by-Play Commentary | FC IC | Basketball | 2 | Sat Dec 21, 2002 12:28am |
CBS play-by-play announcers: should they all be fired? | David Clausi | Basketball | 6 | Mon Mar 27, 2000 11:56pm |