Wednesday question

[ljudge]

Not sure if the comments were directed my way. I agree it's technically OB but would also rule TD. I was trying to give mcrowder a "letter of the law" interp as he requested.

In a nutshell I was trying to articulate what Jim S was saying but did a poor job I guess at showing WHY I would go TD.

[kentref]

To add some clarification:

The holder had his knee on the ground when he fumbled the snap. He then picked up the ball and started to run.

When the runner was airborne the ball was over the sideline when it contacted the pylon. No part of the runner was touching the ground when the ball contacted the pylon.

I'll post the ruling we had this weekend.

[Cougman]

I sure hope you ruled a Score since that is what it was

[PSU213]

Originally posted by kentref
To add some clarification:

The holder had his knee on the ground when he fumbled the snap. He then picked up the ball and started to run.

When the runner was airborne the ball was over the sideline when it contacted the pylon. No part of the runner was touching the ground when the ball contacted the pylon.

I'll post the ruling we had this weekend.

I don't want to be a stickler for using the correct terms, but this is a muff, not a fumble (assuming that holder "dropped" the snap without gaining possession). The only reason this really matters here is that the NF rule deals with a muffed snap, not a fumbled snap (am I correct to say that a fumbled snap cannot happen?).

[kentref]

Originally posted by PSU213

I don't want to be a stickler for using the correct terms, but this is a muff, not a fumble (assuming that holder "dropped" the snap without gaining possession). The only reason this really matters here is that the NF rule deals with a muffed snap, not a fumbled snap (am I correct to say that a fumbled snap cannot happen?).

Duh, my bad. You are correct. I should have said, "muffed the snap." Thanks for catching that.

[mcrowder]

Sorry to be the lone wolf on this, but if the ball went out of bounds before crossing the goalline on a play where the player is airborne, it's out of bounds, not a TD. This is why I asked for clarification on where it hit the pylon. If it first hit the pylon on the side labelled 1-3 or on the side labelled 3-4 above, it's NOT a TD (as it would have had to be out of bounds before crossing the goal line), and you're being purposely inaccurate (and lazy) if you just say it's "easier" to sell the TD on this play. If it first hit the pylon on side 2-4 above, it's a TD, as it would have had to cross the goalline inbounds.

All this assuming the Fed rule's intent is the same as NCAA. From the small piece of the rule posted above, it sounds like it is.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Here's the FEDERATION Case Book Play (1.2.4)

NF Case Book 1.2.4: Ball carrier A10 dives into the pylon at the intersection of the goal line and sideline. RULING: Touchdown. Assuming that the pylon was placed properly, the ball broke the plane of the goal line prior to touching the pylon.

[mcrowder]

Key difference there - AT the intersection. If he hit the pylon AT the intersection, it's a TD - but that is the border-point. Re-read the rule.

Besides - this is a rules Stump-the-Chump. At LEAST we should get the rule right here, even if you are going to intentionally rule it wrong on the field.

ABoselli, Middleman --- why are we making it more complicated than it is? Why are you making it simpler than it is? It's not as simple as you seem to think, and your thinking, quite frankly, is wrong.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The only reason they include the words "...at the intersection of the goal line and sideline" is to distinguish this pylon from the others on the field, like those at the endline. There's nothing to imply that they're talking about where on the pylon the player hits. I think their play is really quite definitive. It's a TD.

I understand your thinking that the since the pylon is OOB, you have to cross the sideline before hitting it even if only a fraction of an inch before the goal line. However, both codes are very clear that the pylon is OOB behind the goal line. And their interpretations calling this a TD is no doubt designed to keep us from having to split a hair down near the goal line.

[ljudge]

I have always thought this was a **TD but for the wrong reasons. In that particular case play I always thought they meant the corner of the pylon so thanks for the official interpretation. The logistics however baffle me as it would have to be one helluva leap to go airborne and hit an endline pylon.

** - I never had this actually happen where the player was airborne and had the ball over the OOB area.

[mcrowder]

First question - from where did you learn that your interpretation was the official one - I've not read that elsewhere.

Second - if the ball misses the pylon and instead goes left of it (in the case of a play on the left front corner of the EZ), but crosses the GL-extended (4 inches out of bounds) while the player is completely airborne, what do you rule? After you answer this, why does the existence of an object outside the field of play cause you to change your ruling to allow a football slightly less than 4 inches out of bounds count as in-bounds?

Also note that in other plays, the pylon is clearly defined as part of the out-of-bounds territory (for instance, on a pass reception where the receiver hits the pylon).

To rule on this correctly, ignore the pylon and read the rule. Your interpretation of that one caseplay is clouding your interpretation of the rules.

I apologize that I sound so stubborn here. But to me this is clear. Out of bounds is out of bounds, and the existence of an object placed on the field of play, but out of bounds to HELP us, is hindering the ruling on this particular play.

[Bob M.]

First question - from where did you learn that your interpretation was the official one - I've not read that elsewhere. [I’m not making the interpretation here—the Federation is. It’s their case play I’m quoting. I’m adding no innuendo to it. They say it’s a TD—not me.]
Second - if the ball misses the pylon and instead goes left of it (in the case of a play on the left front corner of the EZ), but crosses the GL-extended (4 inches out of bounds) while the player is completely airborne, what do you rule? [Like you, I’d rule the ball dead where it crossed the sideline, presumably somewhere short of the goal line. The extension of the goal line has no significance in this play. I’m sure you’re aware of that and agree with that ruling.] After you answer this, why does the existence of an object outside the field of play cause you to change your ruling to allow a football slightly less than 4 inches out of bounds count as in-bounds? [Because both the Federation and the NCAA say that if the ball touches the pylon, it is to be considered “out of bounds behind the goal line.” Note they don’t say behind the goal line extended; they distinctly say behind the goal line. If they made no such statement, I’d agree wholeheartedly with you. That they did is sufficient evidence to me that they want it handled somewhat differently as they describe in their case play. And since we’re asking follow-up questions…how would you rule it if a scrimmage kick rolls from the field of play into that pylon?]

Also note that in other plays, the pylon is clearly defined as part of the out-of-bounds territory (for instance, on a pass reception where the receiver hits the pylon).

To rule on this correctly, ignore the pylon and read the rule [I have read the rule…and the case play—a number of times.] . Your interpretation of that one caseplay is clouding your interpretation of the rules. [I’ll say it again. I’m not making any interpretation here. The Federation is in case play 1.2.4. No clouds here…the sun’s shining !]

I apologize that I sound so stubborn here. But to me this is clear. Out of bounds is out of bounds, and the existence of an object placed on the field of play, but out of bounds to HELP us, is hindering the ruling on this particular play. [I apologize too if I sound pig-headed on this, but I feel that both the Fed and the NCAA are making it equally clear that they want this ruled a TD. If they didn’t, there would be no reason for them to make the explicit statement that a ball touching the pylon is considered OOB behind the goal line. The problem we have is that the pylon is a necessary ‘boundary’ that separates both the field of play from the endzone and inbounds from out of bounds. Whether you make it a 4” x 4” pylon or a pencil-thin stick, you need to account for what happens when the ball hits that boundary. In theory, such a boundary has no dimension so there’s no such thing as hitting the side or front of it. Therefore, they need to accommodate that limitation in their respective rule codes. They do that with NCAA 4-2-3b and NF 4-3-2.]

[mcrowder]

Actually, NCAA and Fed make the point of saying that if the ball touches the pylon at the intersection of the goalline and the OOB line, it's a TD. What I meant by "your interpretation" is your statement that both ruling bodies put in the statement "At the intersection..." to direct us to which pylon they meant.

I don't believe I've ever heard anyone make that assumption, so I'm wondering why you (or others) do.

Don't you think it would be a little comical for them to add the "At the intersection..." part to tell us which pylon they meant (and, um, would you not say that in the bizarre case where Julius Erving dives for a TD and touches the pylon at the intersection of the BACK line and OOB, that it's still a touchdown!?!?!)

Surely that is not the reason they put in "at the intersection...". Surely they are putting that in to define what happens if the ball hits the corner, since the rulebook doesn't explicitly spell that out (the rulebooks DO say that if the ball is out of bounds before it's across the endline it's out of bounds, and vice versa). The "At the intersection" part is to tell us that if it hits the pylon "at the intersection" (which is EXACTLY what is says), it's a TD (and I suppose to tell us, basically, when in doubt of which side of the pylon was hit by the ball first, call it a TD).

What I find strange is that there seems to be a desire (not just by Bob, but by most here) to ignore the rulebook in this case. An apathy in that direction, in fact (as evidenced by the "Why make this hard?" type commentary). Maybe this would have gotten more agreement if the casebook play did not exist, but I truly feel that the majority here is misinterpreting the "at the intersection" part to make the caseplay contradictory to the rulebook. (PS - in other cases where the casebook has clearly contradicted the rulebook, the default is ALWAYS the rulebook, not the casebook, right?)

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Actually, I have no apathy for the rules. In fact, I believe that the rules support a TD in the case we've been discussing--to wit NF 4-3-2. I've never suggested that it's OOB by rule but aw...let's just call it a TD. I've always claimed that by rule, it's a TD.

Back to my question...how would you handle it if a scrimmage kick rolled into the pylon (the one "at the intersection of the goal line and sideline" )??

And I was never suggesting that Dr. J was diving from the field of play to the end line. Let's face it...the Fed is not the best in the world when it comes to wording their rules or their Case Book plays, or their exams for that matter. I think the Fed is just telling you which pylon they're referring to. In fact, if they meant it the way you think they do, they would have said "...at the intersection of the front edge and inside side edge" of the pylon, and not the intersection of the sideline and goal line. Right??

And I'm surprised that no one has questioned the Case Book play I quoted. It says that "Ball carrier A10 dives into the pylon at the intersection of the goal line and sideline." Never once mentions where the ball is. It might be carried outside the pylon (OOB where it crossed the sideline) or might be crossing the goal line inside the pylon (TD) or it might be carried short of the goal line when the player hits the pylon so it would be dead in the field of play or it might be the first thing to hit the pylon which is the play we're discussing. With the Fed, you never can tell what they really are looking for.

Oh well, I just think we should put this one on the "We-really-don't-know" shelf and agree to professionally disagree.

[mcrowder]

Let me ask this, in absense of the caseplay, and on a field with no pylon (for some reason), if an airborne player carried the ball out of bounds before the ball crossed the goalline, is it out of bounds in Fed (it is in NCAA).

Why the difference?

The rule sliver quoted above doesn't even specify where the ball is coming from when it strikes the pylon, and makes no mention whatsoever of TD vs OOB. It merely states that a ball touching the pylon is out of bounds (just like a receiver's foot touching the pylon, even if doing so while not touching the ground, is considered to be touching out of bounds) There are a number of situations where I believe this may come into play (a receiver diving for a catch, feet not touching ground, ball hits pylon before a foot touches inbounds - incomplete - the ball hit out of bounds, or a loose ball play where the ball is rolling around near the pylon, doesn't touch the ground out of bounds, but strikes the pylon - the ball is out of bounds, etc). But I don't believe this play is even relevant.

We all agree that when the ball goes out of bounds, it's out of bounds (in the hands of an airborne player, obviously). So on a play where the airborne player is diving toward the pylon --- if the ball is carried out of bounds at the 1 inch line, it's OUT. Period. It hasn't yet hit the pylon, but it's OUT. The play is dead. Subsequent touching of the pylon doesn't suddenly make it back IN again. That's silly.

I think you're letting the poorly worded caseplay and a rule that doesn't say a word about TD vs OOB convince you that you should over-rule the other rules in the rulebook.

PS - I never meant to say that YOU (Bob) personally had apathy here, it's obvious you don't. But it was implied earlier by a few that this was a simple case and we need not complicate it (and echoed by one other). Apathy. It was also implied by others that it might be easier to just call this a TD even though by rule it's OOB. Again, apathy (worse here - intentional apathy). Obviously, this is not simple. I've discussed this with 3 of the rules gurus I know not on this board, and they all agree that this is out of bounds, and not a TD. I actually find it odd that the board seems to have overwhelming support for a TD on this. It's counterintuitive.