REPLY: AB...I knew you were headed there!<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/4/4_1_6.gif' alt='Brows' border=0></a>

Actually, your play demonstrates a significant gap in the rules. The Fed rules cover the situation where the run ends in the endzone and the play results in a TB (NF 10-4-5d) and they cover the equivalent situation where the run ends in the endzone and the play results in a safety (NF 10-5-2). What they <u><b>don't</b></u> cover is the situation you've presented, i.e. where the run ends in the endzone, but the ball does not become dead there. The gap only becomes significant if B fouls during his run (including the loose ball following his fumble). And you're correct that if you follow the rules as written, your play would result in a safety, not really fair to B. Some might say, "Oh well, B shouldn't have fouled."

The Fed tries to address this gap in Case Book play 10.4.5 Situation J. However, my issue is that in their ruling, they effectively <i>redefine</i> the end of the run in conflict with NF 10-3-3b, and introduce a new concept: that of a fumble being <i>"forced out of bounds."</i> [??????] And they provide no real guidelines as to when to apply these new principles. Is it just for this play? Case Book plays and ARs should be used to clarify issues that are not specifically covered in the rule book or to provide guidance on how to apply a complex rule or the interaction of multiple rules. But...I personally have a problem with an interpretation that is clearly and flagrantly in <u>conflict</u> with existing rules, especially when they don't provide any guidance on when we should set aside existing rules in favor of an interpretation. Since both the rules and the case book plays are deemed "official," which one is "more" official??

And while you're reading the Case Book, take a look at play 10.4.5 Situation I---specificaly play (b). It's not the same as the play you presented. In fact, in involves a foul by A. But it's another case where they set aside rule NF 10-3-3b in favor of something more in line with their sensibilities at the moment. Again, no guidance on when to apply that principle. How are we supposed to operate in such an environment? Sorry for the vent, but your play and the Fed's handling of it is my pet peeve.

I'd like to hear the discussion that the white hat who called safety in that situation has with the coach of B.

If the point of the rule is to avoid "cheap" safeties, then making the momentum spot the basic spot in that play (as long as B's foul isn't behind it) is the equitable ruling.

I don't have my books with me here at work today, so I can't reference your suggested case book plays, but in general, we can dispense with a few of the silly plays that take up space in the case book in favor of a few 'real world' plays that aren't specifically covered right now.

REPLY: I wouldn't want to be that white hat. And I don't really think that such a safety is "cheap" as much as it is "unfair." I think your suggestion has merit, but what if there isn't any momentum spot? What if B intercepts <u>in</u> the end zone, fumbles into the field of play, B5 holds at B's 2, and then the ball rolls out of bounds at B's 3? Remember that the final result of the play is <u>not</u> a touchback, nor would it be a safety. When you get home, take a look at those plays I referenced.

Excellent dialogue here. Bob, you and I had a similar online conversation last year and at that time you mentioned something about NFHS "redefining the end of the run." I sent an e-mail to my chapter president today who has been our rules interpreter for the past few years and he agrees that in both cases we need to rule a safety based on how the rules are written. I'm also in agreement ABoselli's ruling has merit but this is one of those rulings we'll need to make although we wouldn't feel comfortable making it. I'd go with a safety only because I felt I HAD to....I'd also ask a member of the chain crew to please warm up my car while I explained this to coach. And...probably ask for a police escort if the game was on the line.

Question?
 

What if....

B1 intercepts the ball at the B 3 yardline. His momentum carries him into the EZ. Where B1 fumbles and it is recovered by A1.

Is this a TD for A? Or does the momentum rule bring it back to B's 3 ydline?

TD
 

Touchdown for A
See 8-2-1, 8-2-1b, and 8-5-2a EXCEPTION
While the covering official should have dropped his bean bag on the B3, the momentum exception no longer applies as the one of the requirements of <b>8-5-2a Exception</b> was not met. <i>...where the ball is declared dead in his teams possession or it goes out of bounds in the endzone,...</i>
Since in your case neither of these events happened the result is a touchdown for A.

I hope this helps...

Re: TD
 

Yes it does! I like to think through things like the "what ifs" but after reading all the posts I wasn't sure...thanks again!

[Edited by tpaul on Jul 30th, 2004 at 11:00 PM]

ART. 2 . . . It is a safety when:

a. A runner carries the ball from the field of play to or across his own goal line, and it becomes dead there in his team's possession.

EXCEPTION: When a defensive player intercepts a forward pass, fumble, backward pass by an opponent or catches a scrimmage kick or free kick between his 5-yard line and the goal line, and his original momentum carries him into the end zone where the ball is declared dead in <U>his team's possession</U> or it goes out of bounds in the end zone, the ball belongs to B at the spot where the pass or fumble was intercepted or the kick was caught.


I missed that key "his team's possession."

Message for Kent Ref
 

Hi there Kent. Sorry it took me so long to get back to you. Our association has about 30 members. We do the semi-pro games in our county (May-July), high school (6 schools) and Pop Warner (about 15 teams). We start meeting in July every Tuesday night. A few years back we joined the California football association for the training materials (but we are officially part of the Hawaii High School Athletic Association). This year our presenter (I fill in for him sometimes) prepared an outline to cover all the basics before the start of the season (about 8 meetings). We try to cover the most important rules and then discuss the mechanics necessary to cover each type of play. So its a very basic application geared towards getting the guys to master the rules with an eye towards practical use with mechanics.

We give tests weekly but only as homework and then the guys turn them in to be graded. Then instead of wasting a lot of time reviewing the tests in class the instructor will focus on the questions that get missed a lot. These will be covered at the next class and the answers with rule references will be passed out.

Re: Message for Kent Ref
 

That sounds cool. Our associaition(rariatn) has 120 officials. We are part of a bigger group Central Jersey of (NJFOA)(about 300+ officials in CJ). We only meet once a year as Central Jersey. As the Raritan district we meet 7-8 times during the season.

I would like to see what you cover and maybe a sample test? Is that possible? I am always trying to improve and help our association. Sometimes our meetings are so boring and the samething over and over. Any other suggestions? By anybody?

Sounds good.
 

You can email me at [email protected] and I'll see what I can get for you.