Ref Question
- Thread starter PowerI66_
- Start date
Another ref question...4th and 18 from about midfield. Team A is punting, punt is away and Team B tackles/runs into the kicker. Call is roughing the kicker, but the ref explained it as a personal foul and automatic first down. I thought roughing the kicker was just a 15 yard penalty and not an automatic first down. Thoughts?
Any penalty with "roughing" in it is an automatic first down.
Chuck is correct. We still have faceguarding in high school (I don't really know why) and any roughing fouls (snapper, holder, kicker, passer) is automatic 1st down.
I have one a neutral zone infraction and an offside were called on same play. Refs said offsetting penaltys replay the down. .??? Thought it is one or the other in this case neutral zone caused false start
IMO you shouldn't ever offset these... A wing needs to decide "WHAT SHUT THE PLAY DOWN" Keep in mind just because the defense moves its not automatically a foul. It becomes a foul once they enter the NZ. So, generally if you have simultaneous movement I believe it should be ruled false start on the Offense for two reasons.
1. They knew the snap count and had the advantage
2. By rule, their movement (OFFENSE) instantly caused the play to become dead and chances are the Defense hadn't entered the NZ at the time the play was shut down.
Now if the Defense is clearly in the NZ prior to the Offense moving the you have Encroachment on the Defense.
Last edited:
What he said I only said it was possible
. There's also time and score options as well at times.I think the refs followed the rules, but it makes no sense to me.
Team A tries a field goal from opponents 40, short by a mile, but crosses the goal line. Ref awards team B the ball on their own 20 (not 40 where ball was kicked from). Is that really the rule. So basically there is no disadvantage from trying a really long perhaps un-makeable field goal?
Team A tries a field goal from opponents 40, short by a mile, but crosses the goal line. Ref awards team B the ball on their own 20 (not 40 where ball was kicked from). Is that really the rule. So basically there is no disadvantage from trying a really long perhaps un-makeable field goal?
Yes in Federation football (NFHS) both punts and FGs are ruled the same. So a field goal that's short but crosses the goal line.. You have a Touchback.
If a FG fall short of the goal line you have a live ball, just as you would with a punt.
If a FG fall short of the goal line you have a live ball, just as you would with a punt.
FGs in high school can be a little shaky still from a kicking and a blocking and a long snapping perspective. They probably have that rule so coaches will actually attempt some field goals without fearing a blocked FG will turn into a TD the other way....
I think it's a good rule for high school - it's the only way kickers can be developed and get some experience.
Agreed. But since most if not all of us watch football on Saturdays or Sundays that's why I said it's counter intuitive.
If a field goal attempt doesn't reach the goal line, it's a live ball? Live for who? The kicking team can't do anything with it. What if the defense was going after the block, and just ignores the ball? ....it comes to rest at the 5, and the D just walks off. Where do they get the ball?
It would be the defense's ball where the ball comes to rest. Think of a fg as exactly the same as a punt, because that's essentially what it is
I wish I knew this when I was on a sideline. We should've been trying long FGs and sending a gunner to down the ball. Probably only works once... The first time we do it, the opponent possibly has nobody back deep.
Just mind-boggling for me believe that we try a 50 yard FG, we fail miserably, yet the other team possibly gets the ball inside the 5. Terrible rule.
Just mind-boggling for me believe that we try a 50 yard FG, we fail miserably, yet the other team possibly gets the ball inside the 5. Terrible rule.