"After the play"

[STPGopher]

Once the whistle blew, which happened when the ball hit the ground, the play is over and it's Iowa's ball. They then called a foul on Iowa which they should have done, and also called a foul on PJ which they should not have done. Tyler was laid out on the ground from the hit and the whistle had blown, a head coach has the right to take the field to check on an injured player. The idea that he checked on him too fast makes no sense, that's not part of the rule book. You can't run onto the field during a live play, but the whistle had blown.

The penalty on PJ didn't make much of a difference in the game, the dropped ball and quick whistle from the refs to end that play did make the difference.

This. It is why I still am struggling with the call. If it is after the play, then how can you penalize a coach for running out to check on his player? Is there a minimum time rule that we are not aware of?

If it's subjective, how can you make that call?

 

[Sparlimb]

I still haven't heard a good explantion why the two penalties weren't offsetting instead of Iowa getting a net benefit from a dirty hit on one of our top players.

I believe the rule is all post play personal fouls are now enforced. Meaning your team could get two and lose 30 yards. In this case, both were assessed, their's half the distance and ours 15 yards.

 

[dpodoll68]

Generally speaking a penalty cannot cause of prevent a change of possession.

Pass interference, defensive holding, offsides, etc. prevent change of possession all the time.

 

[short ornery norwegian]

the explanation I heard was that the two penalties did not happen at the same time. the late hit happened first, and then the running on the field happened second. in that scenario, when there is a clear sequence of events, the officials enforce the first penalty first, and the 2nd penalty second. hence not off-setting penalties.

and the explanation for the penalty on Fleck is that he ran onto the field without 'permission' so to speak. Yes, a coach may come onto the field to check on the status of an injured player, but in that case, the officials will stop the action and signal the medical staff and coach onto the field. Fleck ran out there too soon. that is what the head of B1G officials reportedly told him in a text.

bottom line - Fleck cost the team 15 yards in field position.

 

[MaxyJR1]

Pass interference, defensive holding, offsides, etc. prevent change of possession all the time.

Penalties cannot cause change of possession only the result of the play can do that. Penalties can prevent change of possession.

Intentional grounding on 4th down does not cause the change of possession, the incomplete pass does. Now it's a loss of down, so you still enforce the yards.

 

[MNfootballfan]

It isn't a great rule but the refs called it correctly.

Possession occurs when the previous play ends or they actually acquire possession. Once the ball was incomplete the play was over.

The refs called it correct - Iowa penalty post play and then later penalty on Fleck.

 

[Taji34]

the explanation I heard was that the two penalties did not happen at the same time. the late hit happened first, and then the running on the field happened second. in that scenario, when there is a clear sequence of events, the officials enforce the first penalty first, and the 2nd penalty second. hence not off-setting penalties.

and the explanation for the penalty on Fleck is that he ran onto the field without 'permission' so to speak. Yes, a coach may come onto the field to check on the status of an injured player, but in that case, the officials will stop the action and signal the medical staff and coach onto the field. Fleck ran out there too soon. that is what the head of B1G officials reportedly told him in a text.

bottom line - Fleck cost the team 15 yards in field position.

Agree on the bottom line, but I support Fleck's reasoning. He mentioned in his post-game presser that he was on the staff that saw Eric LeGrand take a hit and lose the ability to walk. That was certainly different circumstances, but that's something that never leaves your head. I'm sure that is one of the first things that crosses the minds of everyone that was on staff at that game whenever they see a player take a hit, go down, and lay there for more than a second before moving.

In the end, if I were in his position, I probably would have done the same thing.

 

[Panthadad2]

Fleck has run onto the field all year after big hit injuries. I wouldn't be surprised if Ferentz's team coached the officials on this either pre-game or after TJ got smashed the first time (PJ was there within seconds too).

 

[MaxyJR1]

Fleck has run onto the field all year after big hit injuries. I wouldn't be surprised if Ferentz's team coached the officials on this either pre-game or after TJ got smashed the first time (PJ was there within seconds too).

I think it was simply that the official thought he was responding to hit and didn't think Johnson was hurt. Once the calls were made they likely thought it was best to calm things down with penalties on both teams. It obviously hurt MN more.

 

[GophersInIowa]

the explanation I heard was that the two penalties did not happen at the same time. the late hit happened first, and then the running on the field happened second. in that scenario, when there is a clear sequence of events, the officials enforce the first penalty first, and the 2nd penalty second. hence not off-setting penalties.

My issue is why isn't it done this way for penalties occurring during the play then? Like I said previously, it's still off-setting even if the offsides occurs prior to the offensive holding. Just seems inconsistent. For penalties occurring during the play, the order they occur doesn't matter. But when it occurs after the play, the order does matter.

 

[McGopherFan]

Pass interference, defensive holding, offsides, etc. prevent change of possession all the time.

None of those fouls can occur after possession has changed hands that requires the ball to returned to the other team. The perception can be that the turnover was reversed, but by rule the turnover never occurred.

There a small amount of fouls that can and would take a ball away from an intercepting team, targeting a defenseless receiver is a possibility, but I have not seen that called that I can recall. The saying quoted usually involves a loose ball play. Most of those involve punts, but fumbles, and interception apply. It further has to do with the spot foul yardage is marked off from. Almost all defensive penalties are marked from the previous spot, which was established prior to the turnover.

It can be a horrible exercise in splitting hairs. It is an adage that seems to conflict with what is experienced observed

 

[McGopherFan]

Penalties cannot cause change of possession only the result of the play can do that. Penalties can prevent change of possession.

Intentional grounding on 4th down does not cause the change of possession, the incomplete pass does. Now it's a loss of down, so you still enforce the yards.

Clearer than what I wrote.

 

[McGopherFan]

My issue is why isn't it done this way for penalties occurring during the play then? Like I said previously, it's still off-setting even if the offsides occurs prior to the offensive holding. Just seems inconsistent. For penalties occurring during the play, the order they occur doesn't matter. But when it occurs after the play, the order does matter.

Evolution of the rules. Though I cannot explain what those steps were, they basically have been simplified such that the yardage and down portion of penalties offset and the down is replayed.