Fumble or not?

[Ref24]

An interception when the clock reads 0:00 to end the game. The player tosses the ball on ground and no official sounds a whistle or waves arms to signal game over. I say game over as clock read 0:00 and change of possession. My son says with no whistle since interceptor tosses ball on the ground it's a live ball and can be picked and a possible score can occur?

[smileyh]

Originally Posted by Ref24

An interception when the clock reads 0:00 to end the game. The player tosses the ball on ground and no official sounds a whistle or waves arms to signal game over. I say game over as clock read 0:00 and change of possession. My son says with no whistle since interceptor tosses ball on the ground it's a live ball and can be picked and a possible score can occur?

If it was tossed forward, it's dead when it hits the ground. Period is not extended for this foul.

Sent from my SCH-I535 using Tapatalk

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ref24

An interception when the clock reads 0:00 to end the game. The player tosses the ball on ground and no official sounds a whistle or waves arms to signal game over. I say game over as clock read 0:00 and change of possession. My son says with no whistle since interceptor tosses ball on the ground it's a live ball and can be picked and a possible score can occur?

A perfect example of the difference between being ignorant, and stupid. You have the opportunity to correct your son's ignorance by providing him with the necessary, and relevant, information so he can reach the correct conclusion. If he refuses to consider, and ultimately accept, that correct information....you may have a bigger problem.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by ajmc

A perfect example of the difference between being ignorant, and stupid. You have the opportunity to correct your son's ignorance by providing him with the necessary, and relevant, information so he can reach the correct conclusion. If he refuses to consider, and ultimately accept, that correct information....you may have a bigger problem.

I just lurk here (different sport), but I looked up the NFHS rule for ending a period and I don't see anything that would make the son wrong. Can you provide me a reference?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

I just lurk here (different sport), but I looked up the NFHS rule for ending a period and I don't see anything that would make the son wrong. Can you provide me a reference?

Once you throw a forward pass and the ball hits the ground, the play is over because of an incomplete pass. You cannot pick the ball up and advance it from either team at this point.

Peace

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Once you throw a forward pass and the ball hits the ground, the play is over because of an incomplete pass. You cannot pick the ball up and advance it from either team at this point.

But a priori it seems there's only a 50-50 chance of the pass's having gone forward.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Once you throw a forward pass and the ball hits the ground, the play is over because of an incomplete pass. You cannot pick the ball up and advance it from either team at this point.

Peace

Yes. I read the OP as tossed the ball toward his own goal line or laterally and it seemed AJMC was suggesting that somehow the game would still be over.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by youngump

Yes. I read the OP as tossed the ball toward his own goal line or laterally and it seemed AJMC was suggesting that somehow the game would still be over.

He was not that specific. I was just saying a forward pass that hits the ground is clearly dead by rule. Of course, if you throw it backward, then the ball is live. But that was not stated in the OP either way.

Peace

[Altor]

Originally Posted by Ref24

I say game over as clock read 0:00 and change of possession.

Was this a try?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by youngump

I just lurk here (different sport), but I looked up the NFHS rule for ending a period and I don't see anything that would make the son wrong. Can you provide me a reference?

This sounds like an excellent parental teaching opportunity to underscore and explain that searching for an over zealous and immaterial presumed technical violation that adds absolutely nothing of actual value to the intent or practical application of a rule, can more easily subvert the intended purpose of the rule than in any way support it.

Perhaps the father was more interested in demonstrating that being right can often be more important than just not being proven wrong.

[Rich]

Or maybe it was just a question.

Sometimes a cigar is merely a cigar.