Stump the Chump -- Feb 16

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by wwcfoa43

Comment and correction:

2. I am not sure that running OOB makes a receiver ineligible. When he goes OOB he has comitted a foul and if he catches it he may not get to keep his catch. However, you could say the same thing for him leaving the LOS early. So my opinion would be to go with a dual foul for IP and DPI plus the UR.

3. I think you missed the fact that A recovered in the end zone. So if A89 is onside then it is TD for A. If A89 is offside then we have no yards and so no point and give the ball to B on the B-35.

3. You're right... if my mind, I had B recovering the ball in the EZ. Naturally, if A recovers, then it's a TD.

2. You could say that DPI against an A player is such that if A catches the ball, then the yards will stand. Leaving the LS early is different than leaving the playing field. It doesn't say in the white book that DPI against an illegally participating player is not called though. What is A15 comes off the bench and then is interfered with? Interesting anyways.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally posted by JugglingReferee
2. You could say that DPI against an A player is such that if A catches the ball, then the yards will stand. Leaving the LS early is different than leaving the playing field. It doesn't say in the white book that DPI against an illegally participating player is not called though. What is A15 comes off the bench and then is interfered with? Interesting anyways. [/B]

The difference between an ineligibly numbered player who cannot have DPI committed on him and this situation is that the ineligibly numbered player would commit a foul only if they touched the ball. So preventing the player from touching the ball (i.e. fouling) is not a foul on B's part.

The other argument is that B can gain an advantage if allowed to commit DPI. In a situation with just IP and DPI, B can do no worse than give A another down. However, if B is allowed to prevent A from catching the ball and the pass goes incomplete then B could decline the penalty for IP and gain an advantage. This is because A has already fouled. So we must not allow B to prevent A from catching the ball. This lets A the opportunity to make the result of the play unpalatable to B so they must take the penalty.

[lds7199]

Ok, would someone please post a rule reference for play #4? I had no idea that a QB could run beyond the line of scrimmage, retreat, and then throw a legal forward pass. Please post the rule references/case book plays that support this. Thanks!

[MJT]

Originally posted by lds7199
Ok, would someone please post a rule reference for play #4? I had no idea that a QB could run beyond the line of scrimmage, retreat, and then throw a legal forward pass. Please post the rule references/case book plays that support this. Thanks!

In NF, if either of the passers feet are behind the NZ, it is legal (7-5-1), but in NCAA, if any part of his body is beyond, it is illegal (7-3-2a). It also states in NCAA that if he onced crossed the NZ, he may not come back behind and legally throw. I cannot find the rule refernce on that one quickly, but it is in the "nonofficial", but widely accepted "differences" book.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by lds7199
Ok, would someone please post a rule reference for play #4? I had no idea that a QB could run beyond the line of scrimmage, retreat, and then throw a legal forward pass. Please post the rule references/case book plays that support this. Thanks!

REPLY: Like many play situations, this one (for Federation at least) is legal because there's no explicit rule against it. So you won't find a specific reference in the Fed book for this play. But, as MJT points out, the restriction on the passer is solely related to where his feet are relative to the LOS when he passes the ball. Says nothing about where he or another runner might have been prior to the pass. Therefore...it's legal. Contrast this with the NCAA rule (7-3-2e) which explicitly forbids a forward pass thrown from behind the NZ once the passer or any runner in possession of the ball had gone beyond the NZ. In NCAA rules, this is an IFP.

For some of the newbies out there, this is a very important principle. If something is not expressly prohibited by the rules, it's legal. Therefore, don't go looking for a rule reference that says something is legal. You probably won't find it. For example, is it legal the fake a handoff? Of course, but don't go looking for a rule reference in either the Fed or NCAA books.

[lds7199]

Has there ever been an "official" interpretation or case play published by the NFHS that supports this? Also, would the same principle hold true if the QB ran upfield, turned and threw the ball to someone behind the line of scrimmage, and that player then threw a pass? Just doesn't seem right to me.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by lds7199
Has there ever been an "official" interpretation or case play published by the NFHS that supports this? Also, would the same principle hold true if the QB ran upfield, turned and threw the ball to someone behind the line of scrimmage, and that player then threw a pass? Just doesn't seem right to me.

REPLY: The closest thing I can find to satisfy you is from the 1993 edition of the Football Rules Differences. On page 88, play #20:

PLAY: A1 take the snap, runs beyond the line, then retreats back behind the line from where he throws a forward pass.
FED: The forward pass is legal
NCAA: The forward pass is illegal. Once the ball crosses the line in possession of a runner, it may not be passed forward regardless of the location from which it is passed.

Also, the play you presented is legal...provided all ineligibles remained on their side of the neutral zone (or expanded neutral zone) until the pass was thrown.

And if you really want to mull one over, consider this (my Stump the Chump entry for this week):
PLAY: 4th and 10 from midfield. A1 punts the ball short. Receiver B7 muffs the kick at B's 45. It rolls back to A's 45 where A1 picks it up and throws a forward pass to A88. A88 drops it. Let's assume that all Team A ineligibles remained on their side of the neutral zone till the pass was thrown. RULING: (Specify FED or NCAA)

[MJT]

And if you really want to mull one over, consider this (my Stump the Chump entry for this week):
PLAY: 4th and 10 from midfield. A1 punts the ball short. Receiver B7 muffs the kick at B's 45. It rolls back to A's 45 where A1 picks it up and throws a forward pass to A88. A88 drops it. Let's assume that all Team A ineligibles remained on their side of the neutral zone till the pass was thrown. RULING: (Specify FED or NCAA) [/B][/QUOTE]

Alright Bob, here is my take on your STC question.

NF: If A1 would have fell on the ball, or been downed, then 1-10 for A at that spot. That is easy, as B touched it beyond the NZ. Now, since he didn't fall on it, but picked it up and legally passed it, the down never ended, and since it was an incomplete pass on what is still 4th down and team A did not reach the LTG, it will be B's ball at the PS.

NCAA: In NCAA your play is easier. Once a scrimmage kick crosses the NZ, if a team A player recovers, the ball becomes dead. In this case then, the ball becomes dead when A1 picks it up, and it will be team A's ball at that spot. The pass has no significance since the play was already dead. A's ball 1-10 at A's 45 yard line.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: MJT...I agree with your NCAA answer. That was the easier of the two rulings. But I'm not sure I agree with your Fed answer. I think it will be A's ball 1-10 from midfield. The continuity of downs has been broken once B touches the scrimmage kick beyond the NZ. It's not elegant, but even though the down didn't end, the series of downs did end once B muffed the kick. For further thought, what would you do if the same play occurred on third down?

[Edited by Bob M. on Mar 8th, 2005 at 05:23 PM]

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: MJT...I agree with your NCAA answer. That was the easier of the two rulings. But I'm not sure I agree with your Fed answer. I think it will be A's ball 1-10 from midfield. The continuity of downs has been broken once B touches the scrimmage kick beyond the NZ. It's not elegant, but even though the down didn't end, the series of downs did end once B muffed the kick. For further thought, what would you do if the same play occurred on third down?

[Edited by Bob M. on Mar 8th, 2005 at 05:23 PM]

I debated that as well, but was unsure about it cuz of the 4th down status. I would say if 3rd down, then 4th down for A, but since it was 4th down, and when the down ended, team A did not reach the LTG and is not really in team possession as a result of the pass, it would be B's ball. I saw potential problems in my, and your answer, while researching my answer. I know is says "a new series is awarded to the team in possession at the end of the down if R touches a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ," but I am debating the fact of IF the down never ending until the incomplete 4th down pass, are they actually are in team possession at the end of the down? Consider the following. Is team A the team in final possession if on a normal 4th down play, if they throw an incomplete pass? No. That is one of the major factors I am basing my answer on.

I am interested in others thoughts. This could be a good one!!!

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I think the rule book is very clear that if B touches a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ, the next down will be a first down...for someone! My ruling (A, 1-10) is based upon this rule (5-1-2f) and Football Fundamental II-3. So, in my estimation it could never be 4th down if the given play occurred on third down. It would have to be a first down, and you clearly can't award the ball to B. In order to be consistent, that would also be true if the play occurred on 4th down.

On a related topic based upon your post, the Federation is pretty indiscriminate about how they use the word "possession." Whereas the NCAA has a defined term "belongs to" which signifies temporary custody (at least) of the ball, the Fed doesn't. However, the biggest shortcoming of the Fed's definition of "possession" is that it only refers to a live ball. There is no concept (defined) of possession of a dead ball. I think that most of us have gotten by that with an understanding that legal possession of a dead ball belongs to the team next entitled to put the ball in play by snap or free kick. But that's nowhere stated in the Fed rules. For example, K's scrimmage kick untouched by R is rolling beyond the NZ. K picks it up. Who has possession? Well, when the down ended K held and controlled the ball. By Fed definition, he was in possession when the down ended. But...if there was a foul by R during this scrimmmage kick, we treat it as a PSK foul, right? And aren't fouls by R during a scrimmage kick PSK-enforceable only when "...K does not have possession of the ball when the down ends?" (NF 2-16-2g) Do you see the inconsistency? I've already heard some veteran officials say that if R fouls during such a play, they would treat it as a foul during a loose ball play because K did have possession when the down ended. I think we know that's incorrect, but how could you prove it to them? In actuality, the wording of the rules supports their position. Personally, I think the Fed needs to define "legal possession" as we did above, and use that phrase in its criteria for PSK enforcement.

I know I've rambled a bit from the original question, but I still think it will be A's ball 1-10.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I think the rule book is very clear that if B touches a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ, the next down will be a first down...for someone! My ruling (A, 1-10) is based upon this rule (5-1-2f) and Football Fundamental II-3. So, in my estimation it could never be 4th down if the given play occurred on third down. It would have to be a first down, and you clearly can't award the ball to B. In order to be consistent, that would also be true if the play occurred on 4th down.

On a related topic based upon your post, the Federation is pretty indiscriminate about how they use the word "possession." Whereas the NCAA has a defined term "belongs to" which signifies temporary custody (at least) of the ball, the Fed doesn't. However, the biggest shortcoming of the Fed's definition of "possession" is that it only refers to a live ball. There is no concept (defined) of possession of a dead ball. I think that most of us have gotten by that with an understanding that legal possession of a dead ball belongs to the team next entitled to put the ball in play by snap or free kick. But that's nowhere stated in the Fed rules. For example, K's scrimmage kick untouched by R is rolling beyond the NZ. K picks it up. Who has possession? Well, when the down ended K held and controlled the ball. By Fed definition, he was in possession when the down ended. But...if there was a foul by R during this scrimmmage kick, we treat it as a PSK foul, right? And aren't fouls by R during a scrimmage kick PSK-enforceable only when "...K does not have possession of the ball when the down ends?" (NF 2-16-2g) Do you see the inconsistency? I've already heard some veteran officials say that if R fouls during such a play, they would treat it as a foul during a loose ball play because K did have possession when the down ended. I think we know that's incorrect, but how could you prove it to them? In actuality, the wording of the rules supports their position. Personally, I think the Fed needs to define "legal possession" as we did above, and use that phrase in its criteria for PSK enforcement.

I know I've rambled a bit from the original question, but I still think it will be A's ball 1-10.

I am going to start this out with my #1 question; if team A throws an incomplete forward pass on 4th down, who is in possession at the end of that down?? Now that you have your answer, we’ll come back to that later.

I totally understand FB Fundamental II-3, which says “If R is first to touch a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ, a new series will be awarded to the team in possession at the end of the down…” If he had just fallen on the ball, they would be in possession at the end of the down, and therefore it would be A’s ball 1-10. I initially thought the same as you, but I just don’t know if they are in possession at the end of the down if they threw an incomplete pass on 4th down.
That is exactly what they did, throw an incomplete pass on 4th down. It just so happened that the incomplete pass was after a muffed SK by R beyond the NZ. I totally understand that if this was a 3rd down, it would be a 1-10 for team A, and that is kind of weird that it may different if it was 3rd down instead of 4th down. That is not really logical, but do you see my rationale that the down never ended, so when A threw the incomplete pass, 4th down is now over and they did not reach the LTG? Now that does not matter, if they are in possession at the end of that down. The problem is, that down ended with an incomplete pass, I just don’t know if team A technically is.

[MJT]

I called another guy on my crew, and he says A's forward pass was illegal cuz possession changed when A punted the ball, so they cannot pass it after possession has changed. I disagree! He also says that team possession must have changed on the muff by R beyond the NZ, otherwise why would K get the ball if they were in possession at the end of the down. I disagree with that as well. Team possession did not change because team B never gained player possession. I told him the rules simply says if B muffs it beyond the NZ, 1st down for whoever, but if muffed by B in or behind the NZ, A must reach the LTG. He is on vacation, and has no rule book, so just winging it. I say is wrong on both counts, but would see what you all thought.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by MJT
I called another guy on my crew, and he says A's forward pass was illegal cuz possession changed when A punted the ball, so they cannot pass it after possession has changed. I disagree! He also says that team possession must have changed on the muff by R beyond the NZ, otherwise why would K get the ball if they were in possession at the end of the down. I disagree with that as well. Team possession did not change because team B never gained player possession. I told him the rules simply says if B muffs it beyond the NZ, 1st down for whoever, but if muffed by B in or behind the NZ, A must reach the LTG. He is on vacation, and has no rule book, so just winging it. I say is wrong on both counts, but would see what you all thought.

REPLY: I'm with you here...your crew member needs a little bit more grounding in the fundamentals!

Now, for the original play, do you think that NF 5-1-2b might play a part in the ruling? NF 5-1-2b: "After a fourth down, a new series shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down, other than a non-player or unsportsmanlike foul." The touching by B/R must be considered prior to determining who to award a new series to. Right?

Also, take a look at Case Book Play 5.1.3 Situation C, part (b) (abbreviated): 4th and 10 from K's 45-yard line. K1 punts the ball beyond the NZ, R1 muffs it back behind the NZ where K1 recovers and throws a forward pass to K3 which is complete and the 50 and R1 interferes with K3.

Ruling: Since R1touched the locl beyond the NZ, it will be first down for the team in possession. The pass is legal, as there has been no change of possession. If K accepts the penalty for interference, it will be K's ball at R's 40-yard line.

Unfortunately, they don't say what the result would be if K declined the penalty. The reason for this omission is that it's obvious K will accept, since declination would give K a first down at the 50. K gains 10 yards by accepting the penalty.

[Edited by Bob M. on Mar 9th, 2005 at 09:25 AM]

[kdf5]

I agree with Bob M that A gets a new series. I think what makes this play so controversial or whatever is the thought of how coaches, players and crowd would react if this play ever happened for real. I hope it never happens to me
11