[Bob M.]

REPLY: The play your crew was discussing is 10.4.5 Situation I (part b) except that in the Case Book, it's B who recovers--not A. Yes...we did beat this to death last year. And when the Case Book came out this year, it was apparent that the Federation decided to beat it to death as well--at least in their (inadvertent??) redefinition of the "end of the run." The problem with this type of "knee-jerk" interpretation is that it clearly is contradictory to existing rules (10-3-3 for example) and they provide absolutely no guidelines for when to apply this interpretation. Is it just for this play?? Is it for any play where B fumbles in his endzone when A's force put the ball there? Suppose it was a foul by B at B's 1. Would that make a difference in the Fed's "new" basic spot? Suppose it was just an incidental face mask and B broke free and ran to the other side of the end zone where he just loses the handle and fumbles the ball back into the field of play. Do we apply this interpretation to that play as well?

And if you like this interpretation, take a look at 10.4.5 Situation J. There the Federation blatantly redefines the "end of the run" and adds a new concept--that of a ball being "forced out of bounds" by a fumble. Just how do we determine when a fumble "forces" a ball out of bounds? Again no guidelines for using this scatter-brained interpretation. OK...I'm done ranting for now.