Football Rules and Interpretations

[Zeek 16,636]

Not sure if I should ask this here but I'm curious. WT should college use a spot foul for pass interference? What's the argument against using such an idea? I guess that it would be you're assuming a receiver would have caught it.

Also, why do they move the ball "half the distance" from the goal? I've always thought they should just put it on the 1. 

[WarTiger 3,901]

17 minutes ago, Zeek said:

Not sure if I should ask this here but I'm curious. WT should college use a spot foul for pass interference? What's the argument against using such an idea? I guess that it would be you're assuming a receiver would have caught it.

Also, why do they move the ball "half the distance" from the goal? I've always thought they should just put it on the 1. 

That's a pure opinion based question/answer.  Personally I'm completely against using most any of the rules that are (or once were)  exclussively NFL rules.  We have enough of them that have filtered down already.  We don't need any more of them.  15 yards for pass interference is sufficient. 

Not really sure where the half the distance to the goal originally came from.  It's basically just to avoid enforcing a 15 yard penalty from the 17 yard line line (for instance).   This is just part of the game and its kind of like being eligible to catch a pass.  No idea how they decided that 50-79 should be permanently ineligible.  It's just part of the basic rules of the game.   Admittedly some things are just odd.

[Linayus 676]

@WarTiger - do I even need to ask your opinion on the non-overturned "TD" play from Saturday? lol

[WarTiger 3,901]

1 hour ago, Linayus said:

@WarTiger - do I even need to ask your opinion on the non-overturned "TD" play from Saturday? lol

Which one?

[AUsince72 11,084]

6 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

1 hour ago, Linayus said:

@WarTiger - do I even need to ask your opinion on the non-overturned "TD" play from Saturday? lol

Which one?

I'm curious on the Fitz "TD".  Boobee's fumble admittedly didn't have the best angle to overturn.

However, I feel that over the top EZ camera clearly showed Fitz's back on the goal line with NO CHANCE the ball could have crossed it.

Opinion on that one?

[WarTiger 3,901]

11 hours ago, AUsince72 said:

I'm curious on the Fitz "TD".  Boobee's fumble admittedly didn't have the best angle to overturn.

However, I feel that over the top EZ camera clearly showed Fitz's back on the goal line with NO CHANCE the ball could have crossed it.

Opinion on that one?

Based on the video that we had available on the TV replay, the Arkansas TD should not have counted.  The only issue we have is we didn't have a view from the opposite side of the field at the goal line (which is criminal by the way that we don't have that ) so its possible he stuck the ball over prior to landing with his back to the goal line. 

The Whitlow call was easy and absolutely spot on.  The still picture people are floating around claiming TD isn't enough and doesn't show that he really doesn't have possession.  He was CLEARLY and Obviously losing possession of the ball prior to that pic being grabbed.  It was the right call and an unfortunate situation. 

[Linayus 676]

I was speaking of Fitz's "TD" - so thanks!

[jw 4 au 526]

@WarTiger, what is the deal with the fair catch rule?  I have not seen it come into play this much. Probably because of the new kick off rule. But last week he never touch it then picked it up off 5 bounces and gets a penalty for advancing it. Seems odd since it is a live ball and never actually caught. There is no advantage to allow it to bounce (its an oblong ball) but I guess I can understand that interpretation. But then this week we muff it so it is a fumble, live ball, and we will can’t advance it but it wasn’t a penalty. If you recover it and can’t advance it then it should still be advanced to the 25. Seems like a poorly written rule or misinterpreted rule. What say you?

Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere. 

[WarTiger 3,901]

4 hours ago, jw 4 au said:

@WarTiger, what is the deal with the fair catch rule?  I have not seen it come into play this much. Probably because of the new kick off rule. But last week he never touch it then picked it up off 5 bounces and gets a penalty for advancing it. Seems odd since it is a live ball and never actually caught. There is no advantage to allow it to bounce (its an oblong ball) but I guess I can understand that interpretation. But then this week we muff it so it is a fumble, live ball, and we will can’t advance it but it wasn’t a penalty. If you recover it and can’t advance it then it should still be advanced to the 25. Seems like a poorly written rule or misinterpreted rule. What say you?

Forgive me if this has already been covered somewhere. 

Once a fair catch is signaled by ANY player on the field, the recieving team forfeits their right to advance the ball.  It doesn't matter at all if the kick is caught, grounded or muffed.  Once the fair catch is called for the ball will be blown dead when in possession of the receiving  team.   If the kick is untouched but grounded the fair catch still negates the receiving teams ability to advance the ball  Advancing the ball after signaling for a fair catch is a delay of game penalty.   Easy call last week.

Today, if he catches the kick cleanly the fair catch would bring it out to the 25 yard line.  However, because he muffed it (not fumbled), the ball remains live and the kicking team can still recover it and retain possession (they cannot advance it there), so if the receiving team is able to recover it, it will remain at the spot of recovery.   Note that I mentioned he MUFFED it then put (NOT FUMBLED) there.  Why does it matter?  Because the muff means no possession.  The kick doesn't end until its possessed by either the receiving team or legally recovered by the kicking team.   They cannot award a fair catch on a muff because the kick didn't end until we recovered it further back. 

For the record, the new rule doesn't change any of this.  These situations last week and today would result in the exact same ruling in previous years before this rule change on the fair catch on free kicks.

Does this help? or lead to more questions? 

 

 

[GBAU83 212]

18 hours ago, WarTiger said:

Once a fair catch is signaled by ANY player on the field, the recieving team forfeits their right to advance the ball.  It doesn't matter at all if the kick is caught, grounded or muffed.  Once the fair catch is called for the ball will be blown dead when in possession of the receiving  team.   If the kick is untouched but grounded the fair catch still negates the receiving teams ability to advance the ball  Advancing the ball after signaling for a fair catch is a delay of game penalty.   Easy call last week.

Today, if he catches the kick cleanly the fair catch would bring it out to the 25 yard line.  However, because he muffed it (not fumbled), the ball remains live and the kicking team can still recover it and retain possession (they cannot advance it there), so if the receiving team is able to recover it, it will remain at the spot of recovery.   Note that I mentioned he MUFFED it then put (NOT FUMBLED) there.  Why does it matter?  Because the muff means no possession.  The kick doesn't end until its possessed by either the receiving team or legally recovered by the kicking team.   They cannot award a fair catch on a muff because the kick didn't end until we recovered it further back. 

For the record, the new rule doesn't change any of this.  These situations last week and today would result in the exact same ruling in previous years before this rule change on the fair catch on free kicks.

Does this help? or lead to more questions? 

 

 

WarTiger,

I get the fair catch rule and the delay for trying to advance the ball once a fair catch is signaled.  What I don't understand is why is the penalty accessed at the fair catch spot (where the kick ended once the muff was recovered) under the new rule?  I understand it from before when there was no yardage awarded on a kick-off that is fair caught in field of play, but under the new rule, to me it seems that once the fair catch is completed, the ball is spotted at the 25 and then the penalty assessed to move it back to the 20.  

So you are saying that advancing a fair catch is a spot foul at the point of possession? (Which would has been in the past on punt).  

[GBAU83 212]

War Tiger,

High school situation - Team A has 4th and is punting, kick is made but there is a foul against receiving team.  So, thinking PSK issues, if foul is before receiving team possesses the ball, is it not PSK and penalty assessed from previous spot, goes back to kicking team and replay the down (unless penalty yardage results in first down)?

If penalty is after possession, then still receiving team ball and penalty assessed from spot of foul.

Is that correct?

[WarTiger 3,901]

2 hours ago, GBAU83 said:

WarTiger,

I get the fair catch rule and the delay for trying to advance the ball once a fair catch is signaled.  What I don't understand is why is the penalty accessed at the fair catch spot (where the kick ended once the muff was recovered) under the new rule? First, Forget the new rule. The only thing the new rule changed was making the fair catch a touchback.  It didn't change anything else.   It has to be enforced from whre the kick was recovered.  There is no other option.  You can't enforce it from the 25 because the ball isn't going to be placed there.  The penalty would be enforced from the succeeding spot (which is where it was recovered and will next be put in play).  The receiving team is not going to get the benefit of a touchback UNLESS they complete the catch clean. 

No Advance
ARTICLE 2. No Team B player shall carry a caught or recovered ball more
than two steps in any direction after any Team B player gives a valid or invalid
fair catch signal (A.R. 6-5-2-I-III).
PENALTY—Dead-ball foul, delay of game. Five yards from the succeeding
spot [S7 and S21].

I understand it from before when there was no yardage awarded on a kick-off that is fair caught in field of play, but under the new rule, to me it seems that once the fair catch is completed, the ball is spotted at the 25 and then the penalty assessed to move it back to the 20.   If the fair catch is completed cleanly (no muff) then he ran with it, yes it would be enforced from the 25 which would be the succeeding spot.  But, once the kick is muffed, the ball is put in play at the spot of recovery.  So, if there is a penalty such as delay of game for advancing the ball, it would have to be enforced from the spot of recovery which, again, is the succeeding spot. 

Here's a play directly from the college case book:

During a free kick, B21 signals for a fair catch at the B-5. B21 muffs
the kick but immediately recovers the ball at the B-5. RULING: Not a
completed Fair Catch. Team B ball, first and 10 at the B-5.

No Advance—ARTICLE 2
Approved Ruling 6-5-2
I. B1 gives a fair catch signal before a muff by B2, and then B1 catches or
recovers the kick and advances. RULING: Because of B1’s signal the ball
is dead where caught or recovered. Two steps are permitted to enable B1 to
come to a stop or to regain balance. A third or subsequent step inbounds
is subject to penalty from where the ball is caught or recovered. If B1
is tackled, the tackle is disregarded unless deemed unnecessarily rough
or is so late that the tackler should know that there was no intention to
advance. If the kick is caught or recovered by Team B in the end zone, it
is a touchback. If B1 is tackled before completion of a third step, only the
tackler has fouled.

 

2 hours ago, GBAU83 said:

So you are saying that advancing a fair catch is a spot foul at the point of possession? (Which would has been in the past on punt).  No, its enforced from the succeeding spot (meaning where the ball would next be put in play.   If he catches the kick clean and attemps to advance it would be enforced from the 25 (on a free kick and caught inside the 25 to the endline). If he muffs it and then recovers or a teammate recovers and attempts to advance, its enforced from the spot of recovery because that's where the ball would next been put in play (succeeding spot).  

This stuff can get very confusing at times.  Hard to keep it all straight sometimes.

[WarTiger 3,901]

2 hours ago, GBAU83 said:

War Tiger,

High school situation - Team A has 4th and is punting, kick is made but there is a foul against receiving team.  So, thinking PSK issues, if foul is before receiving team possesses the ball, is it not PSK and penalty assessed from previous spot, goes back to kicking team and replay the down (unless penalty yardage results in first down)?

If penalty is after possession, then still receiving team ball and penalty assessed from spot of foul.

Is that correct?

Yes that is all correct.   For benefit of everybody reading this thread that doesn't know what we are talking about, PSK is an abbreviation for POST SCRIMMAGE KICK.  It's a special enforcement procedure that if R fouls during the down, prior to gaining possession (and will be the team next to put the ball in play) the penalty committed by R is enforced from the previous spot (where the ball was snapped prior to the scrimmage kick). 

[GBAU83 212]

5 hours ago, WarTiger said:

Yes that is all correct.   For benefit of everybody reading this thread that doesn't know what we are talking about, PSK is an abbreviation for POST SCRIMMAGE KICK.  It's a special enforcement procedure that if R fouls during the down, prior to gaining possession (and will be the team next to put the ball in play) the penalty committed by R is enforced from the previous spot (where the ball was snapped prior to the scrimmage kick). 

Thanks, WarTiger.  Good explanation on both.

[Linayus 676]

@WarTiger - Care to expound a bit on this whole play? Was it really targeting? (I really don't think it was myself, but that's just my opinion.) And should the two LSU players involved in the celebratory unsportsmanlike penalty (basically an NFL-like celebration) both be called for the penalty or should it technically be "one" foul? I mean, State retains possession because of the "targeting" call and gains 45 yards on top of it!

 

 

[WarTiger 3,901]

6 hours ago, Linayus said:

@WarTiger - Care to expound a bit on this whole play? Was it really targeting? (I really don't think it was myself, but that's just my opinion.) And should the two LSU players involved in the celebratory unsportsmanlike penalty (basically an NFL-like celebration) both be called for the penalty or should it technically be "one" foul? I mean, State retains possession because of the "targeting" call and gains 45 yards on top of it!

 

Removed the video from the reply to make it shorter.    Answer:  NO that wasn't even remotely close to a targeting violation.  Virtually no contact at all above the shoulders.  I would have a hard time even calling that roughing the passer (even though it was completely unnecessary), but targeting?  Not even close. No idea what they saw that resulted in the flag being thrown to begin with, much less having it upheld by replay.  That just boggles the mind.  I will say its the first time I've seen it.  I have absolutely no problem with a covering official throwing the flag for targeting (in most any situation) because its all going to be reviewed and replay can reverse it (like we had happen saturday). But this was pretty clear to not be remotely close to a targeting penalty, so I'm not sure what they saw or thought they saw and for replay to uphold the call?  Wow. 

Now, as far as the unsportsmanlike conduct is concerned, NO that is NOT under any circumstances lumped as one foul.  Naturally the TV video doesn't show us what happened with those two players called for the Unsportsmanlike penalties, but they are absolutely separate penalties and should be enforced exactly as they did it.   All unsportsmanlike conduct penalties are administered separately and in the order in which they occurred.  

Last year I had a game where on a punt return we had a personal foul (unnecessary  hit 10+ yards behind the ball) and then an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the player that delivered the hit (taunting)... Then the coach is on the field and we have an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the coach.   The play resulted in a Touchdown on the return.  But, we can back to the spot where the kick ended and marked off 15 for the personal foul from the opponents 45 yard line, back 15 to their own 40, then 15 on the taunting penalty to the 25, then half the distance to the 12 1/2 yard line for the unsportsmanlike conduct on the coach.  So instead of getting a touchdown they started 1st and 10 from their own 12 1/2 yard line.

[Linayus 676]

12 hours ago, WarTiger said:

Now, as far as the unsportsmanlike conduct is concerned, NO that is NOT under any circumstances lumped as one foul.  Naturally the TV video doesn't show us what happened with those two players called for the Unsportsmanlike penalties, but they are absolutely separate penalties and should be enforced exactly as they did it.   All unsportsmanlike conduct penalties are administered separately and in the order in which they occurred.  

Last year I had a game where on a punt return we had a personal foul (unnecessary  hit 10+ yards behind the ball) and then an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the player that delivered the hit (taunting)... Then the coach is on the field and we have an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty on the coach.   The play resulted in a Touchdown on the return.  But, we can back to the spot where the kick ended and marked off 15 for the personal foul from the opponents 45 yard line, back 15 to their own 40, then 15 on the taunting penalty to the 25, then half the distance to the 12 1/2 yard line for the unsportsmanlike conduct on the coach.  So instead of getting a touchdown they started 1st and 10 from their own 12 1/2 yard line.

I thought about that last night, probably around the time you were typing up this reply actually, that because it's an unsportsmanlike penalty then they are all treated separately. But just to clarify, if two or three guys jumped offsides or all lined up in the neutral zone at the same time, only one penalty is enforced correct?

[WarTiger 3,901]

8 hours ago, Linayus said:

I thought about that last night, probably around the time you were typing up this reply actually, that because it's an unsportsmanlike penalty then they are all treated separately. But just to clarify, if two or three guys jumped offsides or all lined up in the neutral zone at the same time, only one penalty is enforced correct?

Yes, that would be one penalty for an offsides or false start. 

Also remember we have personal fouls and unsportsmanlike conduct penalties.  Those are completely different.  A personal foul is a contact foul. Think unnecessary hit, late hit out of bounds, roughing the passer, roughing the kicker/holder, facemask, Chop block are all 15 yard personal foul penalties.  The thing all of those have in common is contact.     Unsportsmanlike conduct are acts that aren't contact.  Trash talking to an opponent, prolonged/excessive act drawing attention to yourself,  Disrespectfully addressing an official.   When it comes to Unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, a player only gets one.  On the 2nd one in the same game, they are ejected for the remainder of the game.

There are also flagrant personal fouls (throwing a punch (with or without contact)).  Kicking an opponent (with or without contact).  I've actually had two games this season that we've ejected a player for kicking an opponent.  Those are flagrant and the player is ejected.

[WarTiger 3,901]

Here's a new play scenario for some of you to digest.   Happened to us in a game a few weeks ago:

Late in game, team on offense is trailing and in hurry up mode, previous play finished in  bounds, so the offense is rushing to the line to get the ball snapped and stop the clock.

Everybody is set, QB gets under center.  Center snaps the ball, QB muffs it, ball hits the ground, QB picks it up, and throws it immediately to the ground to stop the clock.

Ruling:   INTENTIONAL GROUNDING.   high school enforcement, 5 yard penalty and loss of down.   College enforcement, Loss of down at spot of foul. 

Rule 7-3-2.

f. The passer to conserve time throws the ball directly to the ground (1)
after the ball has already touched the ground; or (2) not immediately after
controlling the ball.

PENALTY [f-h]—Loss of down at the spot of the foul [S36 and S9].

The QB is only legally allowed to spike the ball to stop the clock IF he receives a direct hand to hand snap.  If he muffs the snap and the ball hits the ground, his ability to legally spike the ball to stop the clock is gone.   It will be a penalty.   Likewise, the player that receives the snap to spike it to stop the clock must take the snap from under center (direct hand to hand snap).  If the QB or other person that receives the snap is in shotgun formation and intentionally spikes the ball forward to stop the clock, that's Intentional grounding as well.  

[oracle79 3,569]

Here's a question for you and I know it's currently legal but I'd like to know why?

Why is the head coach allowed to call a timeout from the sideline?  IMO nothing outside the game field should have any bearing on the play on the game field.  If a player calls a timeout, fine.  But, I don't think coaches should be recognized at ALL during the game by the refs.  Abolishing that would get rid of last second timeouts before the play clock expires to avoid a delay of game penalty and it would get rid of that stupid "icing" the kicker right before a FG is attempted.  Stupidest thing going on in football right now, again JMO.  If you want to do that, coach your players to do it.

[WarTiger 3,901]

20 minutes ago, oracle79 said:

Here's a question for you and I know it's currently legal but I'd like to know why?

Why is the head coach allowed to call a timeout from the sideline?  IMO nothing outside the game field should have any bearing on the play on the game field.  If a player calls a timeout, fine.  But, I don't think coaches should be recognized at ALL during the game by the refs.  Abolishing that would get rid of last second timeouts before the play clock expires to avoid a delay of game penalty and it would get rid of that stupid "icing" the kicker right before a FG is attempted.  Stupidest thing going on in football right now, again JMO.  If you want to do that, coach your players to do it.

Well, only the head coach can ask for a timeout from the sidelines.  IMO, it has to be this way.  You can't take that ability/decision away from a head coach because he's responsible for the program that consists of 18-22 year old kids.

The only part of your post/opinion I agree with is eliminating the icing the kicker crap.  I absolutely hate that a team has the ability to do that and that's something I wish they would change.   Head coach calling timeout isn't and never has been an issue and they will never take that ability away from a head coach. 

[oracle79 3,569]

4 minutes ago, WarTiger said:

Well, only the head coach can ask for a timeout from the sidelines.  IMO, it has to be this way.  You can't take that ability/decision away from a head coach because he's responsible for the program that consists of 18-22 year old kids. 

Coach 'em up and force them to make the decision to call a timeout.  Hell, I wish they'd make it illegal to signal in plays from the sideline.  Run a player in if you must, or train your QB how to call a game.  (I know we disagree and it'll never happen, but the NFL was a hell'uva lot better when part of being a QB was being able to call the plays to win.  Who screwed that?  Landry?...LOL).

[WarTiger 3,901]

14 hours ago, oracle79 said:

Coach 'em up and force them to make the decision to call a timeout.  Hell, I wish they'd make it illegal to signal in plays from the sideline.  Run a player in if you must, or train your QB how to call a game.  (I know we disagree and it'll never happen, but the NFL was a hell'uva lot better when part of being a QB was being able to call the plays to win.  Who screwed that?  Landry?...LOL).

Thesee aren't professional players here, they are kids.  Too much at stake to take that out of the head coaches control.   Running a play in, in todays game is ludicrous.  Too many teams want to go fast and running a  play in slows the game down too much for the offense and provides an opportunity for the defense to substitute which is counter productive to a hurry up offense.    

Sorry, the NFL has always been a BAD product.    Just my opinion of course.

[AURex 1,990]

So, here is an off-the-wall question. Can an offensive player with the ball be called for targeting?

In the South Carolina game, the SC RB intentionally lowered his head and launched himself forward (at the defensive played, thus initiating crown of helmet contact and launching himself. The play was reviewed, but I think it it was for *defensive* targeting.

Is there any circumstance in which a ball carrier can be called for targeting?

 

[Linayus 676]

13 hours ago, AURex said:

So, here is an off-the-wall question. Can an offensive player with the ball be called for targeting?

In the South Carolina game, the SC RB intentionally lowered his head and launched himself forward (at the defensive played, thus initiating crown of helmet contact and launching himself. The play was reviewed, but I think it it was for *defensive* targeting.

Is there any circumstance in which a ball carrier can be called for targeting?

 

@WarTiger - I'd like to hear this as well. It seems like everything is skewed to hinder the defensive players while the ball carrier gets away with stiff-arm/facemasks, leading with their helmet, etc.