Stump the chump - 2 ?s

[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.

[Bob M.]

REPLY:
#1 - I know what the Fed case book says about this play, but I've decided that if it happens in my game, I'm not ruling anything. That's my way of protesting the half-a$$ed way the Fed has decided to deal with it. At least the NCAA has decided to codify this situation in their rules. [Sorry, but I've had a five-year vent about this specific play and the Fed's handling of it.]


#2 - A22's participation in the next down is legal. Excessive blood is treated the same way as an injured player. And the only restriction on an injured player's participation is when the official stops the clock because he discovers an apparently injured player. In this case, the player himself discovered the injury so the restriction on his next play's participation is immaterial.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY:
#1 - I know what the Fed case book says about this play, but I've decided that if it happens in my game, I'm not ruling anything. That's my way of protesting the half-a$$ed way the Fed has decided to deal with it. At least the NCAA has decided to codify this situation in their rules. [Sorry, but I've had a five-year vent about this specific play and the Fed's handling of it.]


#2 - A22's participation in the next down is legal. Excessive blood is treated the same way as an injured player. And the only restriction on an injured player's participation is when the official stops the clock because he discovers an apparently injured player. In this case, the player himself discovered the injury so the restriction on his next play's participation is immaterial.

What is "I'm not ruling anything" in #1. I know you may not like what NF says, but who and where are you going to give the ball to for the next play? What do YOU want to do in #1?

[ljudge]

For sake of getting Bob's blood to the boiling point let's add a spin on this. What if in 1a B fumbles on his own in the endzone and a member of team B blocks below the waist in the field of play.

Safety anybody?

[MJT]

Originally posted by ljudge
For sake of getting Bob's blood to the boiling point let's add a spin on this. What if in 1a B fumbles on his own in the endzone and a member of team B blocks below the waist in the field of play.

Safety anybody?

No safety cuz the force that put the ball into the EZ was A's pass. Same basic spot enforcement as my original question, which I still am not giving out, and no one has answered yet!!!???

[ljudge]

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).

Now back to the original questions....in both 1a and 1b I'd enforce the facemask foul from the goal line...again since the run ended there.

The bleeding player may participate in the next down as well.

In the rulings I've laid out I was told this was changing but I haven't seen anything on this yet. Frankly, I have a difficult time calling a play a safety (in the situation I laid out) because the foul didn't occur in the endzone nor did the ball become dead there.

[Edited by ljudge on Jan 14th, 2005 at 07:51 AM]

[mcrowder]

I've always thought it was ludicrous that the rules call for a safety here. The logic of applying a safety in other cases when the team with the ball fouls in their own end zone is that the foul could have prevented an ACTUAL safety, so we should award it. And that makes sense in cases like a pass play with holding in the EZ. But in this play, A could not have gotten a safety by keeping the B player in the end zone - he didn't HAVE to leave the endzone. BOTH codes need to fix this so that the enforcement spot is the 20. It's stupid that A can score on a play like this. In the original sitch, I would carry that logic forward and say the facemask should be enforced from the 20. (No, I would not rule that way in real life - I just think we're badly in need of a rule change here.)

[MJT]

Originally posted by ljudge
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).

Now back to the original questions....in both 1a and 1b I'd enforce the facemask foul from the goal line...again since the run ended there.

The bleeding player may participate in the next down as well.

In the rulings I've laid out I was told this was changing but I haven't seen anything on this yet. Frankly, I have a difficult time calling a play a safety (in the situation I laid out) because the foul didn't occur in the endzone nor did the ball become dead there.

[Edited by ljudge on Jan 14th, 2005 at 07:51 AM]

I did mess up not reading it was B's foul in your twist. It would be a safety in that case.

Back to the original 1a and 1b are NOT enforced from the EZ. One, maybe, or maybe not, but not BOTH. I don't quite understand the difference in the rulings, which I will post the answers to about 3:00 today.

Take some more shots at it before I give the answers to you.

[MJT]

I understand why many of you do not like a safety if B fouls in the field of play, and B fumbles while in the EZ, but; how is it different from a hold in the EZ on the right side, as the QB is throwing a pass outside of the left pocket? Or a BIB in the EZ by A on a 1-10 from their own 2 when the RB is at the 5 yardline. Should we have a special enforcement just because a fumble occured in the EZ, where if the fumble occured in the field of play we would have no problem enforcing from the spot of the fumble???

[ljudge]

I'll patiently await your response, MJT. Since the foul occurred just prior to the fumble (during B's run) I can't imagine how this could be enforced any other way except from the end of the run, which by current definition, is the endzone in this case.

Good post by the way....it keeps people thinking!

[mcrowder]

Here's why I see that sitch different, MJT.

On the play where a QB is back to pass in the endzone, and a lineman holds (or QB intentionally grounds), the hold (or grounding) actually may have prevented a defender from tackling the QB. What happens if he tackles the QB? A safety. It is possible for the defense to score on this play if there's no penalty. So the penalty for illegally preventing a safety should be a safety.

On the play where a player intercepts a ball in the EZ (or catches a punt, recovers a fumble, etc), if his team fouls while he's in the EZ, that foul prevented what? A touchback. Not a safety. It is NOT possible for the other team to score on this play barring further action (player exits and reenters EZ, fumbles, etc.). To award the other team 2 points where they otherwise could not have scored 2 points simply due to a foul is, as stated above, ludicrous. The penalty for illegally preventing a Touchback is a Safety? Preposterous.

[MJT]

Originally posted by mcrowder
Here's why I see that sitch different, MJT.

On the play where a QB is back to pass in the endzone, and a lineman holds (or QB intentionally grounds), the hold (or grounding) actually may have prevented a defender from tackling the QB. What happens if he tackles the QB? A safety. It is possible for the defense to score on this play if there's no penalty. So the penalty for illegally preventing a safety should be a safety.

On the play where a player intercepts a ball in the EZ (or catches a punt, recovers a fumble, etc), if his team fouls while he's in the EZ, that foul prevented what? A touchback. Not a safety. It is NOT possible for the other team to score on this play barring further action (player exits and reenters EZ, fumbles, etc.). To award the other team 2 points where they otherwise could not have scored 2 points simply due to a foul is, as stated above, ludicrous. The penalty for illegally preventing a Touchback is a Safety? Preposterous.

I see your point, and agree somewhat, but what I was trying to describe by the hold on the rt and pass on the left, and the BIB in the EZ and runner at the 5 is that those penalties "would not" prevent a safety, so how should they be handled??

[MJT]

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 B8 recovers the ball at the 6 yard line.

In both 1a and 1b the basic spot is the end of the run. The difference is, in 1a the basic spot is where B lost possession, while in 1b it is the succeeding spot. So, I think that in 1a, it is enforced from the goal line, and in 1b it is enforced from 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.

All of you got this one, if the player notices it and we do not stop the clock, if he gets it taken care of, he can stay in the game.

[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

[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?????