REPLY: AB...I knew you were headed there!
Actually, your play demonstrates a significant gap in the rules. The Fed rules cover the situation where the run ends in the endzone and the play results in a TB (NF 10-4-5d) and they cover the equivalent situation where the run ends in the endzone and the play results in a safety (NF 10-5-2). What they
don't cover is the situation you've presented, i.e. where the run ends in the endzone, but the ball does not become dead there. The gap only becomes significant if B fouls during his run (including the loose ball following his fumble). And you're correct that if you follow the rules as written, your play would result in a safety, not really fair to B. Some might say, "Oh well, B shouldn't have fouled."
The Fed tries to address this gap in Case Book play 10.4.5 Situation J. However, my issue is that in their ruling, they effectively
redefine the end of the run in conflict with NF 10-3-3b, and introduce a new concept: that of a fumble being
"forced out of bounds." [??????] And they provide no real guidelines as to when to apply these new principles. Is it just for this play? Case Book plays and ARs should be used to clarify issues that are not specifically covered in the rule book or to provide guidance on how to apply a complex rule or the interaction of multiple rules. But...I personally have a problem with an interpretation that is clearly and flagrantly in
conflict with existing rules, especially when they don't provide any guidance on when we should set aside existing rules in favor of an interpretation. Since both the rules and the case book plays are deemed "official," which one is "more" official??
And while you're reading the Case Book, take a look at play 10.4.5 Situation I---specificaly play (b). It's not the same as the play you presented. In fact, in involves a foul by A. But it's another case where they set aside rule NF 10-3-3b in favor of something more in line with their sensibilities at the moment. Again, no guidance on when to apply that principle. How are we supposed to operate in such an environment? Sorry for the vent, but your play and the Fed's handling of it is my pet peeve.