1 point safety

[Texas Aggie]

I am hearing it last happen in a Texas-Texas Tech game in 2004.

It was Texas A&M/Texas in '04. A similar thing happened, except the kick wasn't blocked in that game. The snap was mishandled and the ball kicked anyway -- which should have been a foul, but wasn't called -- and the defense recovered, and the rest of the play was similar to what happened last night.

I also appeared to be an illegal forward pass in the end zone, but the result would have been the same.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I also appeared to be an illegal forward pass in the end zone, but the result would have been the same.

The result would not have been the same under current rules. The penalty would be declined by rule. I sent this play situation to Rogers Redding a month ago and he confirmed it would be declined by rule so no 1 point safety if they would have had an illegal forward pass. Penalties are declined by rule after a change of possession on a Try.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

The result would not have been the same under current rules. The penalty would be declined by rule. I sent this play situation to Rogers Redding a month ago and he confirmed it would be declined by rule so no 1 point safety if they would have had an illegal forward pass. Penalties are declined by rule after a change of possession on a Try.

Exactly right, thanks for chiming in and reminding me. There were numerous case plays that covered exactly that scenario this year. Most involved a turnover (typically an interception) in the end zone followed by an IBB/clip/BBW.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

The result would not have been the same under current rules. The penalty would be declined by rule. I sent this play situation to Rogers Redding a month ago and he confirmed it would be declined by rule so no 1 point safety if they would have had an illegal forward pass. Penalties are declined by rule after a change of possession on a Try.

Wow, now there's a real loophole! If you're ever in danger of giving up a safety in such a situation, just intentionally ground the ball forward -- while pulling the face mask of the player tackling you!

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Wow, now there's a real loophole! If you're ever in danger of giving up a safety in such a situation, just intentionally ground the ball forward -- while pulling the face mask of the player tackling you!

Some fouls are still enforced:

Fouls During a Try After a Change of Team Possession

ARTICLE 4. a. Distance penalties against either team are declined by rule (Exception: Penalties for flagrant personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls, dead-ball personal fouls and live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball fouls are enforced on the succeeding kickoff or at the succeeding spot in extra periods. See Rule 8-3-5.) (A.R. 8-3-4-I and II).

b. A score by a team committing a foul during the down is canceled (A.R. 8-3- 2-VII).

c. If both teams foul during the down and Team B had not fouled before the change of possession, the fouls offset, the down is not repeated, and the try is over.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

Some fouls are still enforced:

Fouls During a Try After a Change of Team Possession

ARTICLE 4. a. Distance penalties against either team are declined by rule (Exception: Penalties for flagrant personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls, dead-ball personal fouls and live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball fouls are enforced on the succeeding kickoff or at the succeeding spot in extra periods. See Rule 8-3-5.) (A.R. 8-3-4-I and II).

Does "distance penalties" mean the distance portion of a penalty enforcement, as I think they meant? Then the illegal forward pass from the end zone would still result in a safety, because 0 distance from the spot still leaves the spot behind their goal line.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Does "distance penalties" mean the distance portion of a penalty enforcement, as I think they meant? Then the illegal forward pass from the end zone would still result in a safety, because 0 distance from the spot still leaves the spot behind their goal line.

Per Rogers Redding, it is declined by rule, no score. With exception to illegal touching and intentional grounding, all other penalties are "distance penalties" regardless of where they occur. As written currently, it is declined by rule. We may see a rule change coming this year to cover this play because it has created a lot of discussion. As mentioned in my other post I sent him this play as a "what if " question. It was a once in a blue moon situation. But now that he has seen that this situation is possible I think they would give it another look and prevent Team B from being able to foul in the end zone to prevent a safety. But currently, the penalty is declined by rule according to Redding.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

Per Rogers Redding, it is declined by rule, no score. With exception to illegal touching and intentional grounding, all other penalties are "distance penalties" regardless of where they occur.

Then I think some research as to what the Rules Committee meant by "distance penalty" is in order. In the 2012 NCAA rule book, the phrase occurs exactly 3 times. Once is in 10-2-6, half-the-distance enforcements, and another is in the summary of penalties referencing that provision. The other is 5-2-6, "Fouls Between Downs".

Meanwhile "distance penalties" occurs twice. Once is in the provision referenced here, 8-3-4a, and the other is in 10-2-5, regarding penalties whose distance enforcement would result in free kick restraining lines inside the 5.

I find it very reasonable to interpret all of these occurrences as referring to the distance portion of a penalty that includes a distance enforcement. Otherwise, consider 5-2-6 in light of what "distance penalty" would have to mean as opposed to simply "penalty". The enforcement for any infraction between downs that counts officially as a penalty includes a distance, so the word "distance" in "distance penalty" as used there is superfluous in distinguishing penalties. But as the Committee should not be thought to have put in a superfluous word, the only meaning left would be the distance portion of a penalty. We know that it's possible to decline the distance portion of a penalty separately from the spot the penalty is taken from. So that's what "distance penalty" must mean wherever it occurs in the rule book.

Such a meaning is reasonable, because after possession changes on a try, there's never going to be a down repeated by what had been team B. The only penalties on team B of any consequence are those that prevent a score by B (in which case the spot is immaterial), those that result in a safety (as discussed here, where the distance is immaterial), and those that would be enforced on a succeeding down (which this provision explictly treats separately).

So although the Rules Committee could and should be clearer, Redding kicked this call.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Does "distance penalties" mean the distance portion of a penalty enforcement, as I think they meant? Then the illegal forward pass from the end zone would still result in a safety, because 0 distance from the spot still leaves the spot behind their goal line.

As Jason mentioned, it's a distance penalty. Just because it's possible to decline a distance portion of a foul doesn't mean it's not a distance penalty.

I'm part of a very good rules group that meets all summer and I remember covering this exact scenario with them this past summer. It was sorta laughed off as a one-in-a-million scenario, but now that we've seen it happen...

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JasonTX

The result would not have been the same under current rules. The penalty would be declined by rule. I sent this play situation to Rogers Redding a month ago and he confirmed it would be declined by rule so no 1 point safety if they would have had an illegal forward pass. Penalties are declined by rule after a change of possession on a Try.

Huh? You mean B could prevent A from scoring a one-point safety by committing an illegal act?

That just doesn't make good sense.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by CT1

Huh? You mean B could prevent A from scoring a one-point safety by committing an illegal act?

That just doesn't make good sense.

It's the rule. Any distance penalty after a COP on a try is declined by rule with narrow exceptions. This isn't one of them.

[JasonTX]

Originally Posted by CT1

Huh? You mean B could prevent A from scoring a one-point safety by committing an illegal act?

That just doesn't make good sense.

It's one of those situations that doesn't happen but once in probably a 40 year career. We had been discussing this play a month or so before it happened on another discussion board and none of us could come to make sense of it based upon our own reading of the rule. I decided to send it in to Rogers Redding and he confirmed that the penalty is declined, no score. Many of you know Rom Gilbert, or have used his website for a rules resource, he sent this situation in to Rogers as a suggested rule change to prevent this from happening.

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

It was Texas A&M/Texas in '04. A similar thing happened, except the kick wasn't blocked in that game. The snap was mishandled and the ball kicked anyway -- which should have been a foul, but wasn't called -- and the defense recovered, and the rest of the play was similar to what happened last night.

I also appeared to be an illegal forward pass in the end zone, but the result would have been the same.

In the Texas game I noticed from the video that Texas kicked off as normal as if it was after a TD and not a 2-pt. safety.