|
REPLY: GreyHare...here's the problem: The foul occurred during a running play. The basic spot should be the end of the run...right? Which, according to 10-3-3b is the spot where B1 fumbles the ball. If we strictly applied the rules, the all-but-one principle would make the enforcement spot in B's end zone and result in a safety. However, the force that put the ball into B's end zone was A's pass. So I can see the Fed's reluctance to award A two points in this situation. In fact, I can even see a rationale for making the basic spot B's 20 as they apparently did. But...there is absolutely NO rules support for this. When they say in their ruling that "...the end of the run is the goal line and the basic spot is the 20-yard line," they are contradicting themselves. Some people try to hang their hats on 10-4-5d but that's wrong for two reasons: (1) the result of the play is not a touchback, and (2) even if you wanted to use 10-4-5d, it says that the basic spot is the succeeding spot. What's the succeeding spot in this play, i.e. where is the spot where the ball would next be put in play had no foul occurred? It would be B's 2 yardline...not B's 20. Right?
So all we have is a standalone case play with no guidelines for when to apply it. The Fed has conveniently redefined the basic spot for this one play and doesn't tell us when to do so in the future. Would it make a difference if the fumble was recovered rather than rolling out of bounds? I don't know. What if it was a foul by A instead of by B. Would we still enforce from B's 20? I don't know that either.
The bottom line is that the Fed needs to revise the rules to handle this situation. A case play that defies the existing rules and provides no guidelines for when to apply it only adds to confusion. And it's been confusing for about five years now!
__________________
Bob M.
|