View Single Post
  #26 (permalink)  
Old Tue Mar 08, 2005, 07:58pm
Bob M. Bob M. is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
REPLY: I think the rule book is very clear that if B touches a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ, the next down will be a first down...for someone! My ruling (A, 1-10) is based upon this rule (5-1-2f) and Football Fundamental II-3. So, in my estimation it could never be 4th down if the given play occurred on third down. It would have to be a first down, and you clearly can't award the ball to B. In order to be consistent, that would also be true if the play occurred on 4th down.

On a related topic based upon your post, the Federation is pretty indiscriminate about how they use the word "possession." Whereas the NCAA has a defined term "belongs to" which signifies temporary custody (at least) of the ball, the Fed doesn't. However, the biggest shortcoming of the Fed's definition of "possession" is that it only refers to a live ball. There is no concept (defined) of possession of a dead ball. I think that most of us have gotten by that with an understanding that legal possession of a dead ball belongs to the team next entitled to put the ball in play by snap or free kick. But that's nowhere stated in the Fed rules. For example, K's scrimmage kick untouched by R is rolling beyond the NZ. K picks it up. Who has possession? Well, when the down ended K held and controlled the ball. By Fed definition, he was in possession when the down ended. But...if there was a foul by R during this scrimmmage kick, we treat it as a PSK foul, right? And aren't fouls by R during a scrimmage kick PSK-enforceable only when "...K does not have possession of the ball when the down ends?" (NF 2-16-2g) Do you see the inconsistency? I've already heard some veteran officials say that if R fouls during such a play, they would treat it as a foul during a loose ball play because K did have possession when the down ended. I think we know that's incorrect, but how could you prove it to them? In actuality, the wording of the rules supports their position. Personally, I think the Fed needs to define "legal possession" as we did above, and use that phrase in its criteria for PSK enforcement.

I know I've rambled a bit from the original question, but I still think it will be A's ball 1-10.
__________________
Bob M.
Reply With Quote