Quote:
Originally posted by 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.
|
Surprise surprise surprise Talk about a dead horse ! Yes we talked about this play (or some similar version) last year, and the year before, and the year before that! And what do you want to bet well be talking about it next year too? LOL And it seems the feds have seen fit to change their interpatation for this play each of these years so that all spots of enforcement will now get their fair share of consideration. The first time I was involved in discussing this play I made an uneducated nieve attempt to have this enforced from the oobs spot. After being soundly thrashed and admonished by those much wiser them myself I evidentially saw the goal line as the logical spot of enforcement. I don't have my case book handy so I cant check, but don't I remember something about this play where the Feds said were to ignore the fumble if the related run ends in the end zone?