Penalty on scoring play?

High school

Play goes for a touchdown and you have a pass interference foul but the receiver catches the ball for a TD. Is this penalty enforced on the kickoff??

On the try you have another Pass Interference penalty and the receiver catches that ball for the 2 point conversion. Will you mark off 2 15 yard penalties on the kickoff???

[asdf]

The foul on the touchdown can be enforced on either the try or the kickoff.

The offended team has the choice of hang both fouls enfoced on the kickoff.

Case Book 8.2.2 Situation F

[jimmiececil]

I think there is an inconsistency in the rule for this very situation. For example: Team A’s ball 1st and 10 at the 50 yard line. Team A completes forward pass for 25 yard gain on which Team B is flagged for defensive pass interference. Team A has the option of accepting play and declining penalty or accepting penalty which would give them a first down at the 35 yard line. They can not accept the result of the play and have the penalty added on to the end of the play. If Team A scores a touchdown, then they basically get the result of the play and the penalty is enforced on the try or kickoff. The basic spot of enforcement for a loose ball play moves from the previous spot to the succeeding spot.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by big jake

Play goes for a touchdown and you have a pass interference foul but the receiver catches the ball for a TD. Is this penalty enforced on the kickoff??

CANADIAN RULING:

Auto-declined to accept the score.

Originally Posted by big jake

On the try you have another Pass Interference penalty and the receiver catches that ball for the 2 point conversion. Will you mark off 2 15 yard penalties on the kickoff???

CANADIAN RULING:

Auto-accept the foul and apply on the KO, count 2 points.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by jimmiececil

I think there is an inconsistency in the rule for this very situation. For example: Team A’s ball 1st and 10 at the 50 yard line. Team A completes forward pass for 25 yard gain on which Team B is flagged for defensive pass interference. Team A has the option of accepting play and declining penalty or accepting penalty which would give them a first down at the 35 yard line. They can not accept the result of the play and have the penalty added on to the end of the play. If Team A scores a touchdown, then they basically get the result of the play and the penalty is enforced on the try or kickoff. The basic spot of enforcement for a loose ball play moves from the previous spot to the succeeding spot.

The rule is the rule, but I would be in favor of a rule change declining all but personal fouls.

[HLin NC]

If Team A scores a touchdown, then they basically get the result of the play and the penalty is enforced on the try or kickoff. The basic spot of enforcement for a loose ball play moves from the previous spot to the succeeding spot.

This is no revelation. The rule change was imposed originally for field goals and tries and then worked its way to touchdowns. The NFHS perceived too many "free shots", primarily by B, to foul against a scoring opponent where the scoring team was having to decline a foul to keep the score. They are trying to "disincentivize" fouling for the sake of stopping a score.

I guess for consistencies sake, they decided to make it all fouls rather than just personal fouls.

I could live with changing it to PF's too.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

This is no revelation. The rule change was imposed originally for field goals and tries and then worked its way to touchdowns. The NFHS perceived too many "free shots", primarily by B, to foul against a scoring opponent where the scoring team was having to decline a foul to keep the score. They are trying to "disincentivize" fouling for the sake of stopping a score.

I guess for consistencies sake, they decided to make it all fouls rather than just personal fouls.

I could live with changing it to PF's too.

If not just PF's and USC's, at least get rid of interference. Interference is a spot foul with no distance other than a maximum. You can easily have pass interference on a 2-yard TD, which would be a 1 yard penalty in reality - which then converts to a 15-yarder on the kickoff. That's just wrong.

[jchamp]

I could live with PF/USC/LOD penalties, but I certainly agree with the sentiment. Keeping the above penalties prevents the defense from commiting a player-safety foul in order to gain an advantage. Dropping the mechanics (e.g., facemask-5, IUH) and admin (e.g., illegal sub) fouls from this does not, I believe violate the spirit of the rules. It's like a prisoner's dilemma situation. If B feels he has to foul to prevent a score, and it's not something that puts his opponent in danger of physical harm, then enforce the penalty, ignore it if A scores, and move on.
B should never feel that he can benefit from doing something that elevates A's risk of harm, or is manifest unsporting behavior. So PF-facemask, RTP, DPI, shouldn't be permitted.

Speaking of DPI, what would people think about two different sorts of PI? The idea is, like we have two different sorts of facemask fouls, there should be different degrees of PI--those that are faceguarding/tug-and-pulls and those where someone really wallops his opponent.
It would be Yet-Another-Judgment-Call, but not all PI, in my opinion, rates 15+1st/LOD. It might get more yellow on the field in those really delicate calls, as the covering official doesn't have to think that it's seriously harmful. Mostly, this comes from my thinking that a lot of PI situations don't rise nearly to the level of laying out a kicker or head-hunting a QB, but they both have the same enforcement.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by jchamp

Speaking of DPI, what would people think about two different sorts of PI? The idea is, like we have two different sorts of facemask fouls, there should be different degrees of PI--those that are faceguarding/tug-and-pulls and those where someone really wallops his opponent.
It would be Yet-Another-Judgment-Call, but not all PI, in my opinion, rates 15+1st/LOD. It might get more yellow on the field in those really delicate calls, as the covering official doesn't have to think that it's seriously harmful. Mostly, this comes from my thinking that a lot of PI situations don't rise nearly to the level of laying out a kicker or head-hunting a QB, but they both have the same enforcement.

Well, PI is not 15 because it's a player safety foul - but because it prevents a play that could easily go for more than 15 yards. It's not a matter of severity as much a matter of "did he prevent a possible catch".

Personally, I like the NFL interference rule better. You speak of advantage and disadvantage... B DEFINITELY gains an advantage when he interferes with a receiver who is likely to make a catch more than 15 yards downfield.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

This is no revelation. The rule change was imposed originally for field goals and tries and then worked its way to touchdowns. The NFHS perceived too many "free shots", primarily by B, to foul against a scoring opponent where the scoring team was having to decline a foul to keep the score. They are trying to "disincentivize" fouling for the sake of stopping a score.

The cynical/professional foul problem has come up in other field sports, but was it really a problem in American football? How often did the foul prevent a score? And if it did prevent a score, wouldn't the penalty usually be accepted anyway? Seems to me it would apply more often to prevent unnecessary roughness by players who figured they had nothing to lose.