Proper Enforcement
 

Last Friday:
3rd and 8 from B's 35. A1 drops back to pass and is scrambling A77 blocks B65 in the back and is flagged, A1 passes the ball and is intercepted by B8 at the 10 yard line A88 is flagged for Unnecessary Roughness during the return at the 18 yard line, then B's assistant couch yells at A88 in an unsportsman like manner and is flagged. B8 is tackled at the 28.

What is the enforcement and options?

I am assuming this is still on B's side of the field.

If that is the case, you have two penalties against A. One before change of possession and one after. Team B will have to decline the BIB to keep the ball. Then you tack on the 15 yards for the UNR from the 28 to the 43. Then you administer the Team A USC foul and bring it back to the 28. These do not offset as in HS these are administered in the order they occur.

After all of that 1st and 10 Team B's ball from the B28.

Peace

Or, since you asked for options ... B does not decline, and you have 3rd and 23 from the 50. Not that any sane B would choose this or any sane ref would even mention that option.

Thank you!

You should. You should not presume how much a team values possession vis-a-vis position.

When a team does not want the ball in this case, it will be a first that I have ever seen. Teams do not turn down turnovers.

Peace

When it's obvious, we do not ask. It's obvious in this case. (When it's borderline, I err on the side of asking and have literally been told by coaches ... "why are you asking me?" THIS one is not borderline.) Like Jeff said - coaches don't refuse turnovers.

This is largely a personal choice, and whatever works, works. However, it's not unusual that "obvious" can mean different things to different people. Options can be given, briefly, that explain "obvious" choices so that there is no doubt which is considered the appropriate choice, ay least by the Referee.

Any coach who asks, "why are you asking me" doesn't deserve an answer to that question, and perhaps underscores why NF: 2-32-5-b specifically designates "A captain of a team is a player designated to represent his team during; (b) Penalty decisions following a foul."

Sharing explanations, especially those that may be unusually complicated, with a Coach can often be helpful, but is a, usually worthwhile, professional curtesy.

I would simply say to the coach or captain, "Do you want the ball?" Then go back to the other coach and give them their options and once again move on.

That will end that discussion.

Peace

So if you have a DPI call when B intercepts and returns the ball for a TD, you are going to ask the A coach, "Do you want the ball back with a 15-yard penalty or do you want to allow them the TD?" I looked through our penalty report from Saturday. Of the 19 fouls, 14 of them were obvious (DPI, holding on long gains, DB UNS, targeting, DB illegal substitution). Two others were offsides on a free kick and free kick out of bounds. We offered choices because they have different ways they can enforce the penalty. The three that weren't obvious had choices like 3rd and 8 or 2nd and 14. If we were to track them I would guess these are pretty standard percentages.

I think you meant Team B here. ;-P

I go to the coaches. Most of the Rs that I respect, do.

That's de rigueur here. I haven't once seen an R grab a captain to offer penalty enforcement options.

And here some white hats I work with will only talk with captains. The captain may ask the coach, but the WH's won't listen to the coach. And I have other WH's that will listen to the coach or captain. But in no cases do we just do the obvious or just ask the HC.

For my part, when I WH games, I'll listen to either, deferring to the HC. It seems to be our association's policy to always ask captains, but to precede it with "Obviously ...." when the enforcement is obvious. But this is a good point I'll bring up at our meeting next week. Should we bother to ask?

I'm all about what makes the line of communication between me and the team better. Eliminating a 17-year-old middle man just seems like good practice to me.

Those that will argue that I'm depriving the captain of an important leadership role...I'm not persuaded. My job is to run the game as smoothly as possible.

Ask the captain, loudly, within earshot of the coach - and be looking at the coach. Solves this non-issue rather easily.

Or just eliminate the charade entirely. I even ask the coaches what they want if they win the toss. Yes, there I go through the ceremony, but I already know what the answer is going to be.

On that note, if one team wants to defer and the other wants to receive, can we just eliminate the toss entirely? :D

I've suggested that...we know which team is going to receive and which way the other team wants to kick before we collect the captains. We had like 5 in a row like this last year. We still went through the motions.

At least we got rid of the 2nd half ritual... Progress, no?

My crew didn't do that even before the official mechanic change (unless we had an exceptionally chippy first half and wanted to talk to them). When they come out at halftime we go to the coaches or captains to confirm the one team wants to receiver (never said no) and which direction the other team wants to kick (85% away from scoreboard).

Do you still ask the scored-against team their choice to kick or receive?

Did anyone ever actually *ask* that?

In televised NCAA games, I used to see the referee look at & point to the bench, so I assumed that's what was being asked. I think if you hear the coach yelling, "Kick receive [or return] team!", you can assume that's what their team wants.

In children's games played by mostly-Fed rules, it would not be odd to have the choice to kick off taken. For many of these teams, a kickoff is a 50-50 ball, and for others they would like to kick off to avoid running up the score, even though they'd just been scored on.

The choice to kick off still (or recently) being a reasonable option in Canadian football has been discussed here.

Really, that's what you are assuming? Wow. It couldn't be the referee letting the coach know that play is about to begin again (for example, after a TV timeout)?

He's communicating with the Red Hat (TV guy), not the Head Coach.