Re: offsides

On 2003-10-31 [EMAIL PROTECTED] said:

   >"llump41" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote in message news:a2Ynb.84734$vj2.
   >[EMAIL PROTECTED] >

   >> Article in the prep round-up from last week. A attempting a game
   >>winning FG  as time expires. B jumps offsides just before the snap
   >>of the ball. FG  'good' but, the offsides kills the play. Second
   >>try is wide and A loses the  game. Why does offsides kill the play
   >>in NFHS?

   >IIRC from the Comments on the Rule Revisions from that year,
   >(when was that exactly?) ....

   >"No down should be allowed to begin with an infraction."
   >It didn't make any sense to me then, either.

Then?!  I doubt Scott was reading that when it came out -- unless Fed
changed the rule some time within the past 2 decades and then changed it
back.  Fed originally adopted that rule over 40 years ago, maybe 50 or 60.

However, I have some agreement with Fed's sentiment above.  The problem is
reconciling at least 2 desiderata, one of which is having the rules treat
teams A & B equally.  Obviously that can't be done in all cases, but the Fed
philiosophy at least for a long time was to try to do so.

Now consider team A.  They have the right to put the ball in play, but there
are conditions in, say, NCAA under which if they do so, it's futile.  They
may have an illegal formation, illegal motion, a player offside, and putting
the ball in play under such a condition (assuming the officials don't miss
it, which seems a safe assumption as it's usually an easier call than most
that occur after the ball's already put in play) could only cost them.  But
they could also simply wait out the 25 seconds and incur a delay of game
penalty which would be no worse than for those other fouls, but team B would
not have the option of taking the result of a play.  Or team A could commit
a false start and achieve the same sooner, though the delay of game makes
the point better IMO.  Therefore it offends my esthetics to allow team A to
put the ball in play to give team B the option of taking a down that team A
didn't have to allow happen.

But when it comes to team B, which does not have the right to determine when
the ball is to be put in play, the situation seems different.  If a B player
goes offside, why let them take away team A's advantage by killing the play?
The situation looks really bad if team A lines up for a quick play and team
B then commits a tactical foul to prevent the ball's being put in play.  (In
rugby, defensive players going offside to kill the momentum of the attacking
team is a real problem that the ordinary penalty for offside is insufficient
to remedy.)

So it would seem team A should not be allowed to put the ball in play while
THEY're offside, but should be allowed to do so while B is offside.  But
that offends the principle of equality stated above.

Besides, even in the quick play example, players of B could foul more
severely to make sure the ball becomes dead.  If mere encroachment on the NZ
does not prevent play by rule, then making contact with an opponent will.
Or snatching the ball from the snapper.  If a rule encourages a player to
foul more severely, then something is wrong.

You may take the position that offside players of B should be allowed the
opportunity to get back onside if they can do so before the ball is put in
play.  That makes sense only if you're not going to penalize them then, and
that's fine if you think it has no effect on play.  However, I think it
often does have a detrimental effect on team A.  For instance, a wide
receiver too far away to hear the snap count may start downfield thinking
the ball has been put in play (and not being able to see the ball because
of the temporarily encroaching player(s)).  Team A's QB may be momentarily
disconcerted and, rather than do the smart thing of calling for an immediate
snap to draw the option of a foul, do the stupid thing and pause in the snap
count.

Fed took the choice of making all offsides a dead ball foul, and I can't say
I blame them.  I wouldn't let team A snap the ball from an illegal formation
either.  There's no perfect solution to this.

Robert