Quote:
Originally Posted by mbyron
We're talking about roughing the passer. Only A can have a legal passer who might be roughed. Of course it has to be A's run.
|
How does that follow? The passage quoted in the rules only specifies a spot from which enforcement may be measured following RTP. It says nothing about whose run has to have ended. The only way you know this is from the provision about CoP. If you know no change of possession occurred
before the end of the run, then you know it had to have been a run by A.
Quote:
The number of COPs (greater than 0) is irrelevant to enforcement. That is, if you've got at least one, it's previous spot.
The interpretative confusion you seem to think exists is nonsensical.
|
Then why do we have one interpret'n cited by Reffing Rev and another by you? And I think the one that was referred to by Reffing Rev, whether he himself believes it or not, is the correct one. The rules makers wanted the non-offending team to be able to benefit in terms of enforcement spot by a completed pass by their own team and a run beyond the previous spot, and not to lose that benefit based on subsequent loss of ball. The only loss of incentive is by the offending team, for whom once the ball is possessed by A beyond the previous spot, there is no benefit for a turnover greater than for a tackle.
Suppose it were an "ordinary" foul by the defense such as a personal foul or illegal use of hands on a running play. The enforcement would be from the end of the run. Why would the penalty for RTP be any less advantageous? The foul occurs while the ball is loose, so the rules makers wanted to allow an equivalent sort of advantage by allowing the non-fouling team to complete the pass and advance before the penalty is considered. Loss of the ball subsequent to such an advance wouldn't affect the enforcement spot any more than it would subsequent to a run during which a foul by the defense occurred.
Robert