Can someone explain the rulings in the casebook plays 10.4.5 situations I and J, page 82 in the 2003 Federation casebook? The plays are identical to the 2002 casebook,(rule 10.4.4, since PSK section 10.4.3 was adeed this year) but the rulings are different. I can't find the applicable rule to match the rulings. Also, the rulings(interpertaions)changed, but there were no rule changes this year in this area.

As I said on the other board, there is no rule change, only a change in interpretation. This play was discussed extensively on the national officiating discussion boards last season. Fortunately, some who read the board have some input into interpretations. Our discussions resulted in a change in this case play and interpretation.

BktBallRef..
I understand it's a different interpretation and appreciate your response, but can you explain the rules which apply to the new interpretation? The basic spot, if these plays were to occur at midfield, would be where the ball was fumbled, or end of the run. In these rulings, the ball is fumbled in B's endzone. Why do we go the the out of bounds spot or where the ball was recovered by B?

REPLY: There is absolutely no one who can adequately explain the rulings in 10.4.5 I & J because those rulings contradict the rule book by redefining the "end of the run." They give no additional guidance on when this redefinition should apply. Is it only for this play? What are the guiding principles for invoking this interpretation? We're left wondering and scratching our heads. In particular, the comment at the end of 10.4.5 I is peculiar, since the play would <b>not</b> result in B losing possession. And in 10.4.5 J they seem to invoke a new concept, that of a "fumble being forced out of bounds." We all know that force is a defined term and only applies to a loose ball moving from the field of play into the end zone. What exactly they mean by <i>forcing</i> a fumble OOB is a mystery to me.

Allow me to get on my soap box <img src=http://www.stopstart.freeserve.co.uk/smilie/soapbox.gif> once more: The Federation Case Book and approved interpretations, and the NCAA ARs as well, should always do one of four things: (1) They should provide a simulated game situation and the correct ruling according to the respective rule book, (2) They should clear up gaps in the rules, (3) they should clarify how to handle situations where the rules are silent, or (4) they should explain how a particularly complex rule or set of rules can be used to arrive at the proper ruling. They should not, however, be used in a way such that a ruling contradicts their respective rule book just because a play offends someone's sensibilities--especially if they provide no guidance on when to set the rule book aside in favor of a capricious interpretation.

Boy...I feel better now!