Penalty on an unsuccesful try

[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.