Penalty on an unsuccesful try

[verticalStripes]

The question is whether A could take the ball at the 3 under the "decline the distance portion" rule, but it sounds like the Fed rules don't support that.

[maven]

Nobody quite has it yet.

A has 3 options:

1. Decline the penalty, try no good, KO from the K-40.

2. Accept the penalty half the distance from the end of the run, re-try from R-5.5

3. Accept the penalty, decline the distance portion, and re-try from the previous spot, R-3. 8-3-6b2



K will take option 3, and I wouldn't bother with asking about the other two.

K has NO option to take the penalty on the succeeding KO because this was not a scoring play (try was no good). 8-3-6

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by maven

Nobody quite has it yet.

A has 3 options:

1. Decline the penalty, try no good, KO from the K-40.

2. Accept the penalty half the distance from the end of the run, re-try from R-5.5

3. Accept the penalty, decline the distance portion, and re-try from the previous spot, R-3. 8-3-6b2



K will take option 3, and I wouldn't bother with asking about the other two.

K has NO option to take the penalty on the succeeding KO because this was not a scoring play (try was no good). 8-3-6

This was a very subtle rule change (may have been editorial) a couple years ago, and I didn't notice it until earlier this season when someone pointed out a play like this. I think it's a logical change.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

This was a very subtle rule change (may have been editorial) a couple years ago, and I didn't notice it until earlier this season when someone pointed out a play like this. I think it's a logical change.

It doesn't seem logical to me at all to have a special enforcement like this, rather than the usual spots & repetition of the down. Why should the try be different than any other situation wherein the defense fouls after team A has taken the ball backwards some distance?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It doesn't seem logical to me at all to have a special enforcement like this, rather than the usual spots & repetition of the down. Why should the try be different than any other situation wherein the defense fouls after team A has taken the ball backwards some distance?

It's a very special day in officiatingdotcomland... as I completely agree with Robert here.

Not saying the ruling above is wrong. Just saying I think the rule is illogical.

[asdf]

An unintended consequence from the 2012 editorial change.

I have talked to some that will propose that they fix this.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by asdf

An unintended consequence from the 2012 editorial change.

I have talked to some that will propose that they fix this.

Fix what? It's the exact same as the NCAA enforcement. It's one thing the NFHS actually has right. Only a few more to go...

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It doesn't seem logical to me at all to have a special enforcement like this, rather than the usual spots & repetition of the down. Why should the try be different than any other situation wherein the defense fouls after team A has taken the ball backwards some distance?

I think it makes sense because a try is a different kind of play in many ways and allowing A/K to re-try it at the original spot if a foul by B/R would leave the enforcement behind this spot is a fair penalty. I also think foul by A behind the NZ or fouls by B during running plays that end behind the NZ should be enforced at the previous spot. A DB holds a receiver downfield preventing the QB from having an open receiver and then a 15-yard sack should not result in A having to snap 5 yards BEHIND the previous spot.

[Texas Aggie]

Under NCAA rules, they would replay the try by accepting the penalty, but they could also elect to move the ball back to where the original snap was from. 8-3-2-c.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I think it makes sense because a try is a different kind of play in many ways and allowing A/K to re-try it at the original spot if a foul by B/R would leave the enforcement behind this spot is a fair penalty. I also think foul by A behind the NZ or fouls by B during running plays that end behind the NZ should be enforced at the previous spot. A DB holds a receiver downfield preventing the QB from having an open receiver and then a 15-yard sack should not result in A having to snap 5 yards BEHIND the previous spot.

I agree, but that's the one that should be the exception, not the try. The only plausible reason for a defender to commit illegal use of hands far away from the ball or another potential ballcarrier behind the opponent being held would be to prevent an open receiver, so when this occurs against an eligible receiver during a play on which a legal forward pass is possible, even if the spot of the foul is on A's side of the neutral zone, it should be a previous spot enforcement, and I'd be for making that exception to ABO.

[maven]

Originally Posted by verticalStripes

The question is whether A could take the ball at the 3 under the "decline the distance portion" rule, but it sounds like the Fed rules don't support that.

Ordinarily, when A/K declines the distance portion, you'd continue play from where the previous play ended, in this case, the R-11.

But NFHS does have a rule specific to the try that permits K to replay the down from the previous spot, added to handle exactly this kind of case. 8-3-6b2

[whitehat]

Good call Maven