REFEREE (September, 2003) mistake

[Bob M.]

I've already posted this on the "other" board so some of you may be seeing this twice. Sorry...

Interesting play in the September edition of "REFEREE Magazine" in their Caseplays on p. 21.

PLAY: Team A's ball 1-10 at his own 20 yardline. A1's legal forward pass is intercepted by B2 at the 50 yardline. During B2's advance, B3 blocks A4 in the back at team A's 40 yardline. In the process of making the tackle at Team A's 30 yardline, A5 grasps but does not twist B2's face mask. How are the penalties enforced.
RULING: Team B may keep the ball because it gained possession with "clean hands," but both fouls will likely be enforced. The 10 yard penalty for B's block in the back is enforced from the spot of the foul and moves the ball to the 50 yardline. The five yard face mask foul by A5 is then enforced, leaving B with first and ten from Team A's 45 yardline.

They then go on to say, "Both codes agree (NF 10-3-2, 10-4-4; NCAA 10-2-2c-3)"

Have I been on vacation too long?? Unless I'm severely mistaken, this ruling is not correct in either code! The NF ruling ignores NF 10-2-2, and the NCAA ruling ignores NCAA 10-1-4-1. In both codes, B may only keep the ball if it declines the penalty for its opponent's foul. Has REFEREE begun letting the NF Case Book editors author this column, or have I just read this play incorrectly twenty times?

[Schultj]

You are correct. Since B got the ball with clean hands, they have the choice of declining A's penalty in order to avoid the double foul. It would be 1/10 with the penalty being enforced from the basic spot of the block in the back.

[BktBallRef]

Yep, just another blunder by REFEREE. They do this all the time, which I think, harms their credibility when they offer interpretations.

BTW Joel, the basic spot is not where the block in the back occurred. The basic spot is the A30, where the play ended. The enforcement spot is the A40, where the foul by B occurred.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Bob M.
I've already posted this on the "other" board so some of you may be seeing this twice. Sorry...

Actually Bob some of us are seeing it for the third time (four if you count the original reading in the mag) LOL, I posted this a couple of days ago over at the "other board when it came back on-line. I think this was the day before you got back from vacation. I shot Ref. Mag. an e-mail right away letting them know theyÂ’d kicked this right in the Fed LOL. It usually takes a few days before I get a response from them after pointing out one of their many blundress interpatations which BTW I just love to do

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
Yep, just another blunder by REFEREE. They do this all the time, which I think, harms their credibility when they offer interpretations.

Oh, get over it. The NF makes mistakes all the time. And it does not help when there is debate over what is intended in their rules and what is actually in the rule.

Example: A has the ball first and 10 on their own 20 yard line. While A12 drops back to throw a pass, A 77 holds B 85 with A12 is attempting to pass the ball. A12 throws a forward pass and it is intercepted by B35, who runs for a touchdown. Now if you look at 8-2-2 says, "If during a TD-scoring play, a foul by the opponents of the scoring team occurs, the scoring team may accept the result of the play and have the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot." If you look at the front of this year's rulebook, they say under Rules Changes for 2003, they say, "If during a TD, a foul by the defense occurs, the scoring team may accept the result of the play and have the penalty enforced from the succeeding spot."

Every year the NF does something like this when they chance the language of the rules or add something to a rule (in all sports it seems). Usually it is a mistake they do not change in the Casebook. It is clear that someone did not read both places in their Rulebook to clarify the correct interpretation. And if you read the Handbook, Rulebook, Casebook, NF/NASO Pre-Season Guide and sometimes the Official's Manual, you can find a different interpretation of something in each place. Hell we even had a debate about Intentional Grounding, and there was an interpretation in the Handbook that was not in the Rulebook or Casebook.

So I can forgive Referee for a mistake, especially when the NF and NCAA cannot even get it right about their own rules.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by JRutledge

Oh, get over it.

I don't have anything to get over. People pay good money for this magazine, yet it's constantly filled with inaccuracies. To me and many others, they have no credibility.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 20th, 2003 at 10:59 PM]

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
I don't have anything to get over. People pay good money for this magazine, yet it's constantly filled with inaccuracies. To me and many others, they have no credibility.

Well 99% that I come in contact with do not read Referee Magazine for official rulings. And we can read the rulebooks to get those inaccuracies or inconsistencies. Many read it for the articles on becoming a better official, or things that are outside the rules written on a piece of paper. There is a reason they quote or cite the rule. If I have an issue, I can look it up for myself.

Peace

[cowbyfan1]

The rule in the front of the book is not contradicting itself. Rule 2-42-1. "The offense is the team which is in possession of the ball. The Opponent is the defense." So by this rule the front of the book is exactly right. The offense scored and the foul was on the defense. Now the contradiction comes with 2-42-4 that says "team designations remain the same until the ball is next declared ready for play." So it is really rule 2 that does the contradicting.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
The rule in the front of the book is not contradicting itself. Rule 2-42-1. "The offense is the team which is in possession of the ball. The Opponent is the defense." So by this rule the front of the book is exactly right. The offense scored and the foul was on the defense. Now the contradiction comes with 2-42-4 that says "team designations remain the same until the ball is next declared ready for play." So it is really rule 2 that does the contradicting.

Well the front of the book says "defense," the actual rule says "opponents." If you have a change of possession, that can make a huge difference on how the penalty is enforced. So much of a contradiction, the NF posted the mistake and said they will address this next year in the rulebook. But their intent of the rule was not to give the options on a change of possession penalty when it did not affect the TD. The intent of the rule is to not give a "free shot" to the defense and have the penalty declined with no consequence. I do not think a holding penalty was intended to be enforced on the kickoff possibly.

Peace

[cowbyfan1]

I think opponent is the way it should be. Nothing says that a big ol hog of an o'lineman can't take that same free shot on a Dl, LB or DB. So with it reading opponent it allows the same "protection" for the defense. Besides out Director of Officials stated the same.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
I think opponent is the way it should be. Nothing says that a big ol hog of an o'lineman can't take that same free shot on a Dl, LB or DB. So with it reading opponent it allows the same "protection" for the defense. Besides out Director of Officials stated the same.

I agree with you if we are talking about a change of possession and a Team A player does something on the runback, but not something that was before that change. It is clear that in the NF eyes, a holding penalty before a pass or a fumble was not the intent of their rules change. And correct me if I am wrong, I do not think the NCAA or the NFL uses their rule that is similar for that purpose. I do not think they allow a "holding" penalty to be assessed at the succeeding spot? But then again, I am sure someone will tell me otherwise.

Peace

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
The rule in the front of the book is not contradicting itself. Rule 2-42-1. "The offense is the team which is in possession of the ball. The Opponent is the defense." So by this rule the front of the book is exactly right. The offense scored and the foul was on the defense. Now the contradiction comes with 2-42-4 that says "team designations remain the same until the ball is next declared ready for play." So it is really rule 2 that does the contradicting.

Jim, you're reading it incorrectly. When it says team designatiosn don't change, it means that A and B and R and K don't change. When a turnover occurs, the team with the ball is always on offense.

The rule change in the front of the book is how the editorial committee approved the rule. But when it was written into the rule book, some knucklehead screwed it up. That's directly from Mr. Diehl. A foul that occurs prior to the turnover must be declined to keep the score.

[Edited by BktBallRef on Aug 21st, 2003 at 10:23 AM]

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by JRutledge
And correct me if I am wrong, I do not think the NCAA or the NFL uses their rule that is similar for that purpose. I do not think they allow a "holding" penalty to be assessed at the succeeding spot? But then again, I am sure someone will tell me otherwise.

Peace

REPLY: The NCAA rule says that "Personal foul penalties for fouls by opponents of the scoring team during a down that ends in a touchdown are penalized on the try or the succeeding kickoff.The captain of the offended team has the choice."

This was a 2002 rule change. Note that it only applies to personal fouls.