Case book play

[tempestos]

A referee on a crew of mine read a case book play from the 2003 Rules Differences book that went kind of like this:

A has the ball first and 10 on B's 5. A1 passes into the endzone where it is intercepted by B1. As B1 is being tackled in the endzone, A2 grabs and twists B1's facemask and B fumbles the ball. The ball rolls out to the 2 yard line where it is recovered by A3. The facemask is a 15 yard penalty. Where is the spot of enforcement, who has possession and where is ball placed?

I will tell you that the book claimed that the 15 yards was enforced from the 2 yard line, leaving the ball to B, first and 10 at the 17. I can't see that making sense no matter how I try to put the rules together. I think the book was wrong.

What are your thoughts on the correct answer.

[Mike Simonds]

I know you will be hearing from the rest of the boys on this one.

I don't have all my notes from last year but the reasoning behind my ruling is this:

1. There was a change of possession during the down when B intercepts A's pass in B's end zone.

2. While B was in possession of the ball in his end zone, A grasps and twists B's face mask.

3. B fumbles the ball in his end zone. This is the end of B's run.

4. The fumbled ball rebounds into the field of play where A recovers at B's 2 yard line.

Okay, B has two choices:

1. B can decline A's foul. It will be A's ball 1st and goal at B's 3 yard line.

2. Or B can accept A's foul. The enforcement spot for A's foul is the goal line (NF rule 10-5-2) because the end of B's run was in B's end zone (the spot of B's fumble) and A committed a foul in B's end zone. B's ball 1st and 10 at B's 15 yard line.

I'm sure that if I missed something here the experts will get back to us shortly. Have a great night! We have 2 more weeks of regular season high school JV and V action and then its on to the play-offs.

[ljudge]

I probably would have ruled as you did, Mike. I think your logic is correct as per 10.3.3b...."Where the runner loses possession if his run is followed by a loose ball." It appears as though the book was following 10.5.2 which says "The enforcement spot for any foul by the defense is the goal line when the run ends in the end zone and would result in a safety." If the book was following the special enforcement in 10.5, then my guess is you're right and the book is wrong because the end of B's run would not result in a safety had the ball became dead there. It would have been a touchback if there had been no foul and subsequent fumble.

I'm interested to hear what others have to say. I see it as B's ball 1st and 10 on 15 as well.

[PiggSkin]

I'm not sure what to think of this one... Before I opened my book, I probably would've given B 1st and 10 at the 35... (Basic spot would mean a touchback, and penalize 15 from there...)

Of course, after looking, I see nothing that allows this interpretation... The closest I can find is 10-4-4d, which doesn't apply here because the final result puts the ball at the 2...

That being said, what rule says that the goal line can be used as the basic spot..? (I'm not saying it's wrong, I'm just asking...) As previously mentioned, 10-5-2 comes close, but it doesn't apply since the spot would not result in a safety...

Thoughts..?

[BktBallRef]

We beat it to death last year and it's been discussed this year. I think the change in the case book was due to the discussion we had last year. If the search feature worked, you could pull up severalthreads on this.

But that's the ruling until the NF says something different.

[dumbref]

The case I think your Ref was reading is NF Case Book on page 82 *10.4.5 - (a) the ball went out of bounds at the 2 (b) recovered by B at the 5. Either case, ball belonged to B at the end of the down and the foul would be measure from the end of the run (a) the goal line (B) 5 ydl

In your situation, A has the ball at the end of the down and I agree with Mike's ruling - 1st and 10 for B on the 15.



[Edited by dumbref on Nov 1st, 2003 at 02:13 PM]

[tempestos]

Here is how I looked at it:

1. It is a running play (10-3-2).
2. The spot of enforcement ("basic spot") is where the run ends (10-4-4).
3. The end of the run occurred when B1 fumbled (2-40-9).
4. The enforcement spot becomes the goal line because the run ended in the endzone (10-5-2).

Thus, the penalty will be enforced from the goal line and result in 1st and 10 for B at the 15.

I have had a couple of very experienced white hats tell me off the top of their head that they would enforce the penalty from the 20. They considered it a touchback for B because the penalty occurred in the endzone. However, I can't find support for this interpretation in the rules.

[Forksref]

A free kick or scrimmage kick caught or crossing into the endzone would be a touchback. On a scrimmage kick this year, there was a valid fair catch signal at the 9, then a block by that R at the 9. Ball went into the endzone resulting in a touchback, the basic spot is the 20, the foul behind the basic spot at the 9, enforce half the distance, R ball at the 4 1/2, first and 10.

In this thread, since B has an opportunity to run the ball out of the endzone (interception), the end of the run is in the endzone (not a touchback since the runner was not downed in the endzone so the 20 is not the basic spot), the basic spot is the goal line and the B has the ball at the 15, first and 10 for B.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The play your crew was discussing is 10.4.5 Situation I (part b) except that in the Case Book, it's B who recovers--not A. Yes...we did beat this to death last year. And when the Case Book came out this year, it was apparent that the Federation decided to beat it to death as well--at least in their (inadvertent??) redefinition of the "end of the run." The problem with this type of "knee-jerk" interpretation is that it clearly is contradictory to existing rules (10-3-3 for example) and they provide absolutely no guidelines for when to apply this interpretation. Is it just for this play?? Is it for any play where B fumbles in his endzone when A's force put the ball there? Suppose it was a foul by B at B's 1. Would that make a difference in the Fed's "new" basic spot? Suppose it was just an incidental face mask and B broke free and ran to the other side of the end zone where he just loses the handle and fumbles the ball back into the field of play. Do we apply this interpretation to that play as well?

And if you like this interpretation, take a look at 10.4.5 Situation J. There the Federation blatantly redefines the "end of the run" and adds a new concept--that of a ball being "forced out of bounds" by a fumble. Just how do we determine when a fumble "forces" a ball out of bounds? Again no guidelines for using this scatter-brained interpretation. OK...I'm done ranting for now.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Bob M.
OK...I'm done ranting for now.

Unless a number of us "rant", it won't get changed. I appreciate your ranting on this.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: The play your crew was discussing is 10.4.5 Situation I (part b) except that in the Case Book, it's B who recovers--not A. Yes...we did beat this to death last year. And when the Case Book came out this year, it was apparent that the Federation decided to beat it to death as well--at least in their (inadvertent??) redefinition of the "end of the run." The problem with this type of "knee-jerk" interpretation is that it clearly is contradictory to existing rules (10-3-3 for example) and they provide absolutely no guidelines for when to apply this interpretation. Is it just for this play?? Is it for any play where B fumbles in his endzone when A's force put the ball there? Suppose it was a foul by B at B's 1. Would that make a difference in the Fed's "new" basic spot? Suppose it was just an incidental face mask and B broke free and ran to the other side of the end zone where he just loses the handle and fumbles the ball back into the field of play. Do we apply this interpretation to that play as well?

And if you like this interpretation, take a look at 10.4.5 Situation J. There the Federation blatantly redefines the "end of the run" and adds a new concept--that of a ball being "forced out of bounds" by a fumble. Just how do we determine when a fumble "forces" a ball out of bounds? Again no guidelines for using this scatter-brained interpretation. OK...I'm done ranting for now.

Surprise surprise surprise Talk about a dead horse ! Yes we talked about this play (or some similar version) last year, and the year before, and the year before that! And what do you want to bet we’ll be talking about it next year too? LOL And it seems the feds have seen fit to change their interpatation for this play each of these years so that all spots of enforcement will now get their fair share of consideration. The first time I was involved in discussing this play I made an uneducated nieve attempt to have this enforced from the oob’s spot. After being soundly thrashed and admonished by those much wiser them myself I evidentially saw the goal line as the logical spot of enforcement. I don't have my case book handy so I cant check, but don't I remember something about this play where the Feds said we’re to ignore the fumble if the related run ends in the end zone?

[Patton]

Ok, here's what I THINK. The end of the run is the EZ(assuming he is tackled in the EZ) - if the ball isn't fumbled, B gets it at the 20, right? So to me, by A's PF facemace, B is getting penalized 5 yds if you enforce from the EZ - actually a diference of 20 yds if you were to enforce from the 20 - because of A's penalty. Enforcing from the 20 seems the FAIR way to me. But maybe this is why I'm not a Referee yet!

[Mike Simonds]

I don't agree with you. The final result of the play is the determining factor. If you read rule 10-4-5-d, the spot of enforcement would be B's 20 (the succeeding spot) if the final result of the play was a touchback. In this case the final result of the play was not a touchback.

That is why you must ask yourself this question: What would happen if B declines A's foul? The final result of the play would be A's ball first and goal at B's 2 yard line.

Therefore, if B accepts A's foul, you must apply rule 10-5-2. The end of B's run is in B's end zone, and there was a foul by A during the down prior to a change of possession (A's recovery of the fumble).

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by Mike Simonds
I don't agree with you. The final result of the play is the determining factor. If you read rule 10-4-5-d, the spot of enforcement would be B's 20 (the succeeding spot) if the final result of the play was a touchback. In this case the final result of the play was not a touchback.

That is why you must ask yourself this question: What would happen if B declines A's foul? The final result of the play would be A's ball first and goal at B's 2 yard line.

Therefore, if B accepts A's foul, you must apply rule 10-5-2. The end of B's run is in B's end zone, and there was a foul by A during the down prior to a change of possession (A's recovery of the fumble).

REPLY: I agree with you Mike...and I'll take it one step further. Even if you wanted to say the final result is a TB, you'd still be faced with the consequences. NF 10-4-5 says that when the final result is a TB, the basic spot is the succeeding spot. It doesn't say that the basic spot is B's 20. So...where exactly is the succeeding spot? Using 2-40-10, it's "...where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked if a foul had not occurred." And where is that? It's at B's 2, correct?

[Patton]

That's why I stated "here's what I THINK" and "Enforcing from the 20 seems the FAIR way to me". You have both explained it very well and I understand better why it would be enforced the way it is. Why didn't B just take a knee after the interception?!!!