[Bob M.]

REPLY: DrMoore...I concur with Redding's new position that this is not a change of possession and therefore enforcement from the end of the run is appropriate. Take a look at the definition of team possession. It says that for a team to have possession, then either (a) the ball is in their player's possession, or (b) the ball is loose following their player's loss of player possession. In this play, has a B player ever had player possession? No, therefore Team B could never have team possession. Thus, there was no change of possession. In fact, when the ball becomes dead, it is loose following the Team A player's fumble. By definition, when the ball became dead, it was still in Team A's team possession. Again...no change of possession.

Also by definition, "possession" is only significant for a live ball. Possession of a dead ball has no real meaning. In fact, that's the reason that the last criteria for PSK-enforcement was changed this season--because it was always defined in terms of possession of the dead ball. But what they really meant was who was next entitled to put the ball in play.

Why the change in Redding's opinion? Well, he is now the new NCAA rules editor. Back a few years ago, this play was confounding the NCAA rule gurus. At that time the RTP enforcement rule said penalize from the end of the last run "...when that run ends beyond the neutral zone and there is no change of team possession." Some were saying (as you do) that the touchback qualifies as a change of possession; others said no, that the definition of team possession governed any COP discussion. So, to resolve the problems, the rules committee added the words "...during the down" so that the exception now read "...when that run ends beyond the neutral zone and there is no change of team possession during the down." Everyone thought it was fixed until the Rules Editor at the time (John Adams) opined that the touchback, in his opinion was a change of possession during the down. So Redding and the others went with that. However, I believe that Dr. Redding has now issued a much more consistent ruling.