Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
The IW provisions should be amended to make it that when a scrimmage kick is beyond the ENZ, and has not been first touched by any player of R, team R gets the choice. I think they way they have it now was arrived at to keep the rules shorter, going by team possession consistently with the rest of the book.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerSooner
The issue with this quote is that possession doesn't change just because the ball has crossed the ENZ. There are a variety of possible actions that could occur after an IW with the ball in the air that would determine which team is awarded possession at the end of the down. Some of those possible actions may never occur because some players stopped playing once the IW is blown.
|
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman
True, but...so what? It doesn't answer the question of how the situation should be administered. Many actions may also occur because of how IW is ruled, too -- no matter how the rule is written. It just seems the rules makers would want to provide for the likeliest outcomes, rather than less likely ones.
Suppose a game is called early, due to no fault of the administration of the game. Sure, many things could've happened if they'd played on, but doesn't it make more sense to think that the team that was ahead would've stayed ahead, if a result needs to be adjudicated?
|
So if we give R an option on any scrimmage kick that has crossed the ENZ, what options are we giving them? Do we give them the option to replay the down or take possession from the dead ball spot (have fun determining where that was)? You could propose awarding possession to R at the end of the kick, but that requires both teams to continue playing after the whistle with R having to move into position to field the kick and K continuing to have to cover the kick in the event the kick is not fielded by R.
Concerning the intent of the rules makers; I don't think their intent is to provide for the likeliest outcome. I think the intent is to arrive at the most equitable outcome as often as possible even if the outcome is less likely than some other outcome. The other component of the rules is that we have something that can be consistently applied. The value of consistency is that an IW is probably going to disadvantage one team or the other in most situations, and I bet the rules makers saw the danger of having officials try to correct a situation they created via the IW by using their own judgement as to what could/should/would have happened.