Ok, first post here, so be nice. Can someone please explain to me the NFHS intent for rule 3-3-4? It is the central element in this whole fiasco, however I've found little discussion regarding why the rule and its exceptions were meant to be applied in this situation. In researching this issue, I've come across the NFHS case book that provides examples of how the rules are to be applied. Here are the ones associated with the rule:
NO UNTIMED DOWN
3.3.4 SITUATION A: Time expires for the second quarter as A11 runs the ball beyond the line to gain and A11 then throws a forward pass to A9 who scores a touchdown. RULING: Team B will likely accept the penalty which will negate the touchdown. The period will not be extended as A's foul contained a loss-of-down provision.
3.3.4 SITUATION B: The clock is running with 10 seconds remaining in the fourth period as A1 drops back about 4 yards and intentionally grounds a forward pass to stop the clock. The penalty is accepted. The referee starts the clock on the ready following penalty enforcement and time expires before A can snap the ball. RULING: If B accepted the penalty for A’s foul, the game is over and there is no untimed down as A had an accepted penalty on the last timed down that called for loss of down.
3.3.4 SITUATION C: On the last timed down of a period, Team A throws a pass which is intercepted by B1. B1 advances to the 3-yard line where he: (a) throws an incomplete pass; (b) throws a pass to B2 in the end zone for an apparent touchdown; or (c) hands the ball forward to B2 who runs for apparent touchdown. RULING: In (a), (b) and (c), the period will not be extended as Team B has committed a foul which has a loss of down aspect to the penalty if accepted.
3.3.4 SITUATION D: In the middle of a period, Team A throws a pass which is intercepted by B1. B1 advances to the 8-yard line where he: (a) throws an incomplete pass; (b) throws a pass to B2 in the end zone for an apparent touchdown; or (c) hands the ball forward to B2 who runs for apparent touchdown. RULING: In (a), (b) and (c), the accepted foul will result in B having the ball, first and 10 as the loss of down aspect of the penalty would not apply
It appears that Situation A is what the intent of the rule was here. A team with the ball should not be given another play if they score a touchdown as the result of a foul at the end of the half. That seems logical. If by declining the penalty, the defense would have to accept the result of the play, which they most certainly would like to decline. If the penalty is accepted, they do not want to give the team committing the foul an untimed play.that can be used to their advantage. In the case of Fenwick vs. PN, Fenwick stood to gain from the rule as written because it shielded them from any repercussion from the Int. Grounding penalty. To me that goes against the spirit of the rules, which are written to punish the team who commits a penalty. Although Fenwick had no clue what the rule was, it was written with the unintentional consequence of protecting a team that commits a penalty from the enforcement of that penalty.
It seems that a rule change or amendment would clear up this issue as it has been the center of controversy twice in the last few months. Same exact issue, no one knew the rule. The revised rule should provide the offended team the option to accept or deny the loss of down penalty and then apply the rule per the book - 5 yds from the spot of the foul and loss of down.
Any thoughts out there? This logic was clearly applied by both refs for the PN/Fenwick game as well as the CMU/OK State game. So were they really wrong afterall?
NO UNTIMED DOWN
3.3.4 SITUATION A: Time expires for the second quarter as A11 runs the ball beyond the line to gain and A11 then throws a forward pass to A9 who scores a touchdown. RULING: Team B will likely accept the penalty which will negate the touchdown. The period will not be extended as A's foul contained a loss-of-down provision.
3.3.4 SITUATION B: The clock is running with 10 seconds remaining in the fourth period as A1 drops back about 4 yards and intentionally grounds a forward pass to stop the clock. The penalty is accepted. The referee starts the clock on the ready following penalty enforcement and time expires before A can snap the ball. RULING: If B accepted the penalty for A’s foul, the game is over and there is no untimed down as A had an accepted penalty on the last timed down that called for loss of down.
3.3.4 SITUATION C: On the last timed down of a period, Team A throws a pass which is intercepted by B1. B1 advances to the 3-yard line where he: (a) throws an incomplete pass; (b) throws a pass to B2 in the end zone for an apparent touchdown; or (c) hands the ball forward to B2 who runs for apparent touchdown. RULING: In (a), (b) and (c), the period will not be extended as Team B has committed a foul which has a loss of down aspect to the penalty if accepted.
3.3.4 SITUATION D: In the middle of a period, Team A throws a pass which is intercepted by B1. B1 advances to the 8-yard line where he: (a) throws an incomplete pass; (b) throws a pass to B2 in the end zone for an apparent touchdown; or (c) hands the ball forward to B2 who runs for apparent touchdown. RULING: In (a), (b) and (c), the accepted foul will result in B having the ball, first and 10 as the loss of down aspect of the penalty would not apply
It appears that Situation A is what the intent of the rule was here. A team with the ball should not be given another play if they score a touchdown as the result of a foul at the end of the half. That seems logical. If by declining the penalty, the defense would have to accept the result of the play, which they most certainly would like to decline. If the penalty is accepted, they do not want to give the team committing the foul an untimed play.that can be used to their advantage. In the case of Fenwick vs. PN, Fenwick stood to gain from the rule as written because it shielded them from any repercussion from the Int. Grounding penalty. To me that goes against the spirit of the rules, which are written to punish the team who commits a penalty. Although Fenwick had no clue what the rule was, it was written with the unintentional consequence of protecting a team that commits a penalty from the enforcement of that penalty.
It seems that a rule change or amendment would clear up this issue as it has been the center of controversy twice in the last few months. Same exact issue, no one knew the rule. The revised rule should provide the offended team the option to accept or deny the loss of down penalty and then apply the rule per the book - 5 yds from the spot of the foul and loss of down.
Any thoughts out there? This logic was clearly applied by both refs for the PN/Fenwick game as well as the CMU/OK State game. So were they really wrong afterall?