[Bob M.]

REPLY: OK…this is going to be a long post, but humor me.

Here’s my problem with the original two plays (1a & 1b) that MJT posted. Actually, my problem is not with the plays, but with the half-a$$ed way the Federation has chosen to deal with them. Rather than revise Rule 10 to cover theses situations, they have chosen to just cite the plays and their knee-jerk interpretations in the Case Book—without any support whatsoever in the Rule Book. The Federation rule book adequately covers two situations when there is a change of possession and B has possession in his own endzone: (1) when the run ends in B’s end zone and the result of the play is a touchback (NF 10-4-5d), and (2) when the run ends in B’s endzone and the result of the play is a safety (NF 10-5-2). BUT…they don’t cover at all the situation where the run ends in B’s endzone but the play results in neither a touchback nor safety. That’s precisely what MJT’s plays cover.

So how does the Federation choose to deal with these play situations? Here’s their strategy: Let’s continue to leave them out of the rule book (for how many years now?) and we’ll just write up two specific play situations for the case book. And those interpretations will be in conflict with established enforcement principles in Rule 10. And then, in those rulings we will also redefine the ‘end of the run’ and we’ll introduce a new concept without defining it—that of a fumble being “forced out of bounds” and make that new concept the key to the interpretation. Huh??

The Federation provides these interpretations with absolutely no guidelines on when to apply them. Is it just for these plays? Who knows? Let’s take a look at them:

10.4.5 Situation I: B1 intercepts A1’s pass in B’s end zone where B1 is grabbed by the face mask, then fumbles while in the end zone and (a) the ball rolls back into the field of play and then goes out of bounds at B’s 2-yard line; (b) the ball rolls back into the field of play where B7 recovers at B’s 5 yardline. [Note: These are MJT’s two plays.] RULING: In both (a) and (b), the basic spot is the end of the run. In (a), that spot should be where B lost possession, while (b) should be the succeeding spot. The intent and spirit of the rule is not to allow B to lose possession due to illegal actions by A.

The ruling for play (a) says that the basic spot is “…where B lost possession.” I guess this is in the end zone, and therefore the penalty is assessed from B’s goal line. The Fed neglects to tell us that ‘insignificant’ piece of information. If that’s their intention, I can buy that. It makes logical sense--to me at least. Play (b) changes all that. Now they say the end of the run is “the succeeding spot.” Again they fail to specifically tell us where that is, but by definition, it would be B’s 5. So in this case, they’ve now redefined the end of the run to be the succeeding spot in conflict with NF 10-3-3. And then they completely confound everyone with the last sentence in the ruling: How could B ever lose possession in this play? Whether they accept or decline the penalty, they would retain possession—unless I’m missing something. Why these two situations are treated differently is anyone’s guess. By the way, even the NCAA rule book doesn’t explicitly cover play (b) except implicitly through its forward fumble OOB rule, though it does cover play (a) explicitly. And when do we use this ruling? Suppose the face mask was incidental and B1 breaks away and runs to the other side of the end zone where he carelessly fumbles while switching the ball from one hand to the other. Now the ball rolls into the field of play. Clearly, the foul had nothing whatsoever to do with the fumble. And it appears from the sentence in the ruling about “intent and spirit” that the foul causing the fumble was a key to their interpretation. So should we employ this enforcement here? Who knows? Or suppose A’s foul was not a face mask against the ball carrier. Maybe it was a hold while the ball is loose following B1’s fumble. Should we be using this enforcement now? Again, no guidelines provided. Make a guess.

And if you really want to scratch your head, read 10.4.5 Situation J about a foul by B.

10-4-5 Situation J: B1 intercepts A’s pass in B’s end zone. B2 clips A9 at B’s 10 yardline after the change of possession. B1 then fumbles in B’s end zone and the ball rolls out of the end zone and out of bounds at B’s 2-yard line. RULING The penalty is enforced under the all-but-one principle. The end of the run is the 2-yard line as B’s fumble forced the ball out of bounds. The foul would be enforced half the distance, first and ten for B on B’s 1-yard-line.

So again, they’ve redefined the end of the run in conflict with NF 10-3-3 (but at least it’s in conflict consistent with the play above). But they also introduce the concept of a fumble ‘forcing’ the ball out of bounds. Just what in the world does that mean?!? Especially when the word “force” is used differently as a defined term elsewhere in the Fed rules. Outside of this play, I’ve never before heard that phrase. And it appears from the ruling that this concept is a key to their enforcement. I can sort of buy the idea that maybe this shouldn’t be a safety since the ball was in B’s possession in the end zone due to A’s force (using the term correctly!). But all B has to due is hold on to the damn ball! But to hypothesize further, how would the Fed want us to handle this situation: No clip by B, but as the ball is rolling loose in the field of play, A11 is about to recover on B’s 2 when B4 tackles him allowing the ball to roll out of bounds. Wouldn’t you think a safety (at least) is warranted here? Allowing B to retain possession on their 1 is most inequitable here. Talk about gaining an advantage by fouling…

In my estimation, the Case Book (and the ARs for NCAA) should be used to temporarily close gaps in the rules or to describe how complex play situations should be handled consistent with the rules. But when it’s used to provide ‘knee-jerk’ interpretations that are in conflict with the rule book—especially when they provide no real guidance on when to use them—they go too far.

By the way, has anyone ever seen/read a precedence statement for the Federation rule book and case book? That is, if they are in conflict with one another, which takes precedence? The NCAA rule book is quite clear that if the rules and the approved rulings (ARs) are in conflict, the rules prevail.

[Edited by Bob M. on Jan 18th, 2005 at 10:28 AM]