Stump the chump - 2 ?s

[MJT]

Originally posted by ljudge
MJT the case book for end-of-the-run doesn't support your official ruling. The bouncing ball after the fumble doesn't redefine the end of the run. I agree it's still part of the same run, but the end of the run (by definition) is where the player loses possession when followed by a loose ball.

I don't have the exact reference but I will find it over the weekend. Unfortunately, I need to head to Atlantic City in a few minutes for some free surf 'n turf and open bar thing...GOD my life is so awlful! But, seriously, I will find it and get back to you with the exact reference.

Have a good weekend.

LJ

ljudge, now that your stomach is full, it is right out of the casebook, 10-4-5I on page 87. I don't really like 1a, but that is it for NF.

[MJT]

Originally posted by parepat
I must be very slow. Isn't the fould against A. Wasn't B's facemask held. It seems that you responses to this are as if B fouled?????

Yes, team A player grabbed B's FM while he was in EZ and he fumbled. B will not lose possession of the ball no matter what as a result of A's foul. Where does it seem as though we are discussing it as if B fouled?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by MJT
Busy week, a couple of quick ones.
B1 intercepts A12’s pass in B’s end zone where B1 is grabbed by the face mask and fumbles. The ball rolls
1a) the ball rolls back into the field of play and goes OOB’s at B’s 4 yard line.
1b) the ball rolls back into the field of play where B10 recovers the ball at the 6 yard line.

Just after a down ends A22 sees he has a bleeding scratch on his arm and calls a TO. The TO is granted and team A goes to the sideline for a conference. During the TO A22’s blood is cleaned up and the scratch is covered with an ace wrap. A22 returns with his team and participates in the next down.

1a) B 1D/10 @ 35
1b) B 1D/10 @ 21

2) We have a 2-minute blood rule. A22 can play if it is dealt with within 2 minutes.

[ljudge]

MJT - I see what you're talking about and have read the case you noted. I never realized the case book has inconsistent rulings when it comes to determining the end of the run. In cases 10.2.3 situation (p. 81) and 10.4.3 situation a (p. 84) they show basic spots being where the player in possession had fumbled which is why I came up with the ruling I had in 1a. Now I'm really confused.

Take a look at those two cases and let me know your thoughts.

[parepat]

MJT - B now has the ball in his own endzone so force is not a factor. If A accepts the foul by B (which they will) you need to enforce from the end of B's run which is in the endzone. It's a foul during a running play by B. The basic spot is the end of the run which is the endzone, hence a safety (in the situation I provided).

If A accepts foul by B - B didn't foul?

[MJT]

Originally posted by ljudge
MJT - I see what you're talking about and have read the case you noted. I never realized the case book has inconsistent rulings when it comes to determining the end of the run. In cases 10.2.3 situation (p. 81) and 10.4.3 situation a (p. 84) they show basic spots being where the player in possession had fumbled which is why I came up with the ruling I had in 1a. Now I'm really confused.

Take a look at those two cases and let me know your thoughts.

That is the problem with the one I stated. Normally, as stated in the 2 situations you just mentioned, you enforce from the spot of the fumble. The post I made does not follow this, and the only difference is the fumble occurs in the EZ, rolls out of the EZ and OOB's in one spot, and is recovered in the other. The NCAA clarifies situation (b) I mentioned, but not (a).
All I can say is, the NF does not clarify why, but 10.4.5I NF casebook shows a different enforcement if the fumble occured in the EZ.

[MJT]

Originally posted by parepat
MJT - B now has the ball in his own endzone so force is not a factor. If A accepts the foul by B (which they will) you need to enforce from the end of B's run which is in the endzone. It's a foul during a running play by B. The basic spot is the end of the run which is the endzone, hence a safety (in the situation I provided).

If A accepts foul by B - B didn't foul?

parepat - one of us is confused on what the other is saying. I am going to tell you what I am saying, and if I am confused by what you are saying, let me know.

In my original post, B intercepts and an A player grabs the B players facemask while he in the EZ, the B player fumbles the ball out of the EZ. The foul is on A, not B.

Now if B had fouled, then yes, it would be a safety, as the penalty would be enforced from B's fumble, which was in their EZ.

[parepat]

MJT -thanks for the response. I was confused by ljudge's reference (which a copied in my last post) to the foul by B. Must have been a typo.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: OK…this is going to be a long post, but humor me.

Here’s my problem with the original two plays (1a & 1b) that MJT posted. Actually, my problem is not with the plays, but with the half-a$$ed way the Federation has chosen to deal with them. Rather than revise Rule 10 to cover theses situations, they have chosen to just cite the plays and their knee-jerk interpretations in the Case Book—without any support whatsoever in the Rule Book. The Federation rule book adequately covers two situations when there is a change of possession and B has possession in his own endzone: (1) when the run ends in B’s end zone and the result of the play is a touchback (NF 10-4-5d), and (2) when the run ends in B’s endzone and the result of the play is a safety (NF 10-5-2). BUT…they don’t cover at all the situation where the run ends in B’s endzone but the play results in neither a touchback nor safety. That’s precisely what MJT’s plays cover.

So how does the Federation choose to deal with these play situations? Here’s their strategy: Let’s continue to leave them out of the rule book (for how many years now?) and we’ll just write up two specific play situations for the case book. And those interpretations will be in conflict with established enforcement principles in Rule 10. And then, in those rulings we will also redefine the ‘end of the run’ and we’ll introduce a new concept without defining it—that of a fumble being “forced out of bounds” and make that new concept the key to the interpretation. Huh??

The Federation provides these interpretations with absolutely no guidelines on when to apply them. Is it just for these plays? Who knows? Let’s take a look at them:

10.4.5 Situation I: B1 intercepts A1’s pass in B’s end zone where B1 is grabbed by the face mask, then fumbles while in the end zone and (a) the ball rolls back into the field of play and then goes out of bounds at B’s 2-yard line; (b) the ball rolls back into the field of play where B7 recovers at B’s 5 yardline. [Note: These are MJT’s two plays.] RULING: In both (a) and (b), the basic spot is the end of the run. In (a), that spot should be where B lost possession, while (b) should be the succeeding spot. The intent and spirit of the rule is not to allow B to lose possession due to illegal actions by A.

The ruling for play (a) says that the basic spot is “…where B lost possession.” I guess this is in the end zone, and therefore the penalty is assessed from B’s goal line. The Fed neglects to tell us that ‘insignificant’ piece of information. If that’s their intention, I can buy that. It makes logical sense--to me at least. Play (b) changes all that. Now they say the end of the run is “the succeeding spot.” Again they fail to specifically tell us where that is, but by definition, it would be B’s 5. So in this case, they’ve now redefined the end of the run to be the succeeding spot in conflict with NF 10-3-3. And then they completely confound everyone with the last sentence in the ruling: How could B ever lose possession in this play? Whether they accept or decline the penalty, they would retain possession—unless I’m missing something. Why these two situations are treated differently is anyone’s guess. By the way, even the NCAA rule book doesn’t explicitly cover play (b) except implicitly through its forward fumble OOB rule, though it does cover play (a) explicitly. And when do we use this ruling? Suppose the face mask was incidental and B1 breaks away and runs to the other side of the end zone where he carelessly fumbles while switching the ball from one hand to the other. Now the ball rolls into the field of play. Clearly, the foul had nothing whatsoever to do with the fumble. And it appears from the sentence in the ruling about “intent and spirit” that the foul causing the fumble was a key to their interpretation. So should we employ this enforcement here? Who knows? Or suppose A’s foul was not a face mask against the ball carrier. Maybe it was a hold while the ball is loose following B1’s fumble. Should we be using this enforcement now? Again, no guidelines provided. Make a guess.

And if you really want to scratch your head, read 10.4.5 Situation J about a foul by B.

10-4-5 Situation J: B1 intercepts A’s pass in B’s end zone. B2 clips A9 at B’s 10 yardline after the change of possession. B1 then fumbles in B’s end zone and the ball rolls out of the end zone and out of bounds at B’s 2-yard line. RULING The penalty is enforced under the all-but-one principle. The end of the run is the 2-yard line as B’s fumble forced the ball out of bounds. The foul would be enforced half the distance, first and ten for B on B’s 1-yard-line.

So again, they’ve redefined the end of the run in conflict with NF 10-3-3 (but at least it’s in conflict consistent with the play above). But they also introduce the concept of a fumble ‘forcing’ the ball out of bounds. Just what in the world does that mean?!? Especially when the word “force” is used differently as a defined term elsewhere in the Fed rules. Outside of this play, I’ve never before heard that phrase. And it appears from the ruling that this concept is a key to their enforcement. I can sort of buy the idea that maybe this shouldn’t be a safety since the ball was in B’s possession in the end zone due to A’s force (using the term correctly!). But all B has to due is hold on to the damn ball! But to hypothesize further, how would the Fed want us to handle this situation: No clip by B, but as the ball is rolling loose in the field of play, A11 is about to recover on B’s 2 when B4 tackles him allowing the ball to roll out of bounds. Wouldn’t you think a safety (at least) is warranted here? Allowing B to retain possession on their 1 is most inequitable here. Talk about gaining an advantage by fouling…

In my estimation, the Case Book (and the ARs for NCAA) should be used to temporarily close gaps in the rules or to describe how complex play situations should be handled consistent with the rules. But when it’s used to provide ‘knee-jerk’ interpretations that are in conflict with the rule book—especially when they provide no real guidance on when to use them—they go too far.

By the way, has anyone ever seen/read a precedence statement for the Federation rule book and case book? That is, if they are in conflict with one another, which takes precedence? The NCAA rule book is quite clear that if the rules and the approved rulings (ARs) are in conflict, the rules prevail.

[Edited by Bob M. on Jan 18th, 2005 at 10:28 AM]

[wwcfoa43]

[Canadian Ruling]

1a) The face mask can be applied at point of foul or at point ball dead. A fumble from the end zone to out of bounds is an offside pass subject to penalty. Team A can choose whether to enforce this or not. So we have multiple choices on enforcement:

- UR at PF, OP choice doens't matter: L15 from the B20. B ball at the B35.

- UR at PBD, OP declined: L15 from B4. B ball at the B19.

- UR at PBD, OP accepted: L15 from B20. B ball at the B35.

So B is best to enforce from PF.

1b) Again, the face mask can be applied at point of foul or at point ball dead. A fumble from the end zone to the field of play is an offside pass BUT IS NOT subject to penalty. So we have:

- UR at PF: L15 from the B20. B ball at the B35.

- UR at PBD: L15 from wherever the ball goes dead (question does not specify).

BLOOD RULE: The Canadian blood rule allows for an OFFICIAL's time out not to exceed two minutes to allow a player to be dealt with. If he can be dealt with in two minutes then he can play, otherwise he must be substituted for.