I just received my 2005 Football guide and was looking at the sample case plays they published. KDF5 published the thread titled "Chumper Stumper" and cited what he thought was an error. I just found another one, unless I'm under the false impression of how to enforce a declined illegal fwd pass play.

I have always thought that if B declined a illegal fwd pass play then the ball will be put in play from the spot of the illegal fwd pass, even if the IFP occurred behind the NZ. I have 7-5-3 to support me on this. But I'm thinking perhaps there's that possibility I'm missing something, or there are two mistakes in this guide. Consider this play...

2nd and 5 on A's 30-yard line. A1's legal forward pass is caught by eligible A2 on his 26-yard line. A2 then throws a backward pass to A1, who is at A's 20-yardline. A1 throws a forward pass toward eligible A3 at the 50 yardline. While the pass is in flight, A3 is bumped in front and above the waist by B7.

Ruling: The DPI restrictions ended when A2 touched the 1st foward pass. As a result B7 cannot be called for DPI (I agree). A1's second fwd pass was illegal. If the penalty for the illegal pass is accepted, it will be 3rd and 20 from A's 15 yard line (enforced 5 yards from A's 20 yardline - spot of pass).

DECLINING the penalty results in 3rd and 5 at A's 30-yard line.

<b>WHY?????? Why isn't it 3rd and 15 from the 20 yard line?</b>

The fed even says on the 1st page of the brochure this is considered a running play. This has got to be a mistake. But....But....I'm going to a rules interp meeting as most of you are in the next few weeks. This "official" publication is going to really mess a lot of people up. Unless I'm incorrect of course. If I'm wrong, please explain what I'm missing. I have been known to screw this stuff before without thinking it through.

7-5-3 says "if the offending team declines the distance penalty, it has the choice of having the down counted at the spot of the illegal incomplete forward pass (if the IFP is caught or intercepted) of having the ball put into play as determined by the action which followed the catch.

Thus, the FB guide is incorrect, and as always, officials will get confused. Luckily, I don't know why you'd want to decline, but still.

Why do they not have several different capable officials proof these to see problems. Look at the number of casebook errors. This should not happen, and most, if not all could be eliminated by having many others proof them for errors before publication.

Here are the errors on the casebook plays as listed by someone else in another thread.

Pg. 4 Situation 4: in the Ruling, the year should be 2008 not 2006

Pg. 6 Situation 9: in the Ruling, the word legal should be deleted.

Pg. 14 *2.17.2 Situation D: The play is referring to a block below the waist, however, the ruling refers to a block in the back. The reference should be changed to a block below the waist in the Ruling.

Pg. 19 *3.3.3 Situation A: This play is completely incorrect due to the 2005 rule change concerning not extending a period when there is a loss of down aspect in a penalty.

Pg. 23 *3.5.2 Situation B: The “designated” Head Coach WILL BE allowed to request a timeout.

Pg. 25 3.5.11 Situation A: There is no rules support for this Ruling. Rule 3-5-11 states that a correction may be made provided the request is made prior to the ball becomes live following the play to be reviewed unless the period has officially ended. In this play, there is nothing that contradicts the rule.

Pg. 27 *3.7.3 Situation B: Parts (a) & (b) do not represent a foul. (a) B2 leaving the field through the end zone sideline and going directly to his team box is not illegal. (b) B12 cannot make the substitution and withdrawing is not a foul.

Pg. 30 4.2.2 Situation G: Due to the 2005 rule change concerning momentum, this play is incorrect. Momentum DOES apply to grounded kicks and fumbles.

Pg. 32 4.3.3 Situation B: add to the Comment. “The clock should continue to run if the official rules a catch.” There is no reason to stop the clock.

Pg. 34 *5.1.2 Situation B: The Ruling contradicts the Comments on rule changes on page 81. On pg. 81 if the official does not view the player, replaced player or substitute as attempting to become part of the play, there is no foul. This is expressly stated in this case play.

Pg. 39 6.1.8 Situation F: A 2004 rule change concerning K batting or muffing a ball into R states that the touching by R is ignored.

Pg. 40 *6.2.6 Situation: The use of an incorrect term changes the ruling. In the the next to the last sentence, which begins with “Once the zone disintegrates…..following kick-catching interference…. the word “no” should be “an”….If there is no R player in position to make a catch, K can catch the kick. If there IS an R player in position to make a catch, the result will be kick-catching interference.

Pg. 43 6.5.7 Situation A: Seems to defeat the intent of PSK however, Team K is in possession of the ball at the end of the down and thus it is NOT a PSK situation.

Pg. 53 *7.5.9 Situation: Add to the end of the Ruling that this is also an illegal forward pass.

Pg. 54 7.5.10 Situation F: The play does not tell where B1 blocks A3. If it is away from the direction of the play, there is no foul.

Pg. 55 8.2.2 Situation B: This is a try for point play and thus when B2 intercepts the pass, the play is dead. There is no accepting or declining a penalty by A. No touchdown can be scored by B.

Pg. 63 9.3.2 Situation B: Part (a) is improperly listed as a chop block when in reality it is an illegal block below the waist. (It is not in the free blocking zone.)

Pg. 65 *9.4.3 Situation A: Typo = B1 is the culprit in the play yet B6 gets blamed in the ruling. (Must be a case of mistaken identity.)

Pg. 67 *9.4.3 Situation G: In the Ruling, there is mention of part (a) when there is nothing but a simple ruling with no other parts.

Pg. 71 *9.6 COMMENT: (b) needs to denote where the spot of enforcement will be. SUCCEEDING SPOT!

Pg. 79-80 *10.2.1 Situation D: In the Ruling, there is no need for the portion of the sentence stating “…since it did not foul prior to the kick crossing….” Irrelevant

Pg. 87 10.5.2 Situation B: The COMMENT has no rules basis/support. It is a good idea and should become part of rule 10, but under the current code there is no rules support.

Pg. 88 10.5.3 Situation A: Part (b), Why would B have to replay the down? The best that B can get is a touchdown and even if B accepts the penalty, the enforcement would be on the try!

Pg. 88 *10.5.3 Situation B: The Ruling is incorrect since Team A make take both the touchdown and the penalty. A will not have to decline the pen


[Edited by MJT on Jul 26th, 2005 at 12:22 AM]

For those that do not know, I am Canadian.

I have ordered and will receive tomorrow (Tue) copies of the 2005 Fed football books. I really find it fascinating the difference between our games. I'm hoping to learn a bit from reading them.

Having said that, are you telling me that there are numerous errors in the casebook that I just purchased?

Errors in the FED casebook are fairly common.

Sad but true.

I was thinking the same thing the other day when about halfway through the case book. Sending the case book draft out to a half dozen folks for review would likely catch 90+% of the errors. That would result in a better initial product and a lot less confusion for a lot of officials.

Of course the down side would be a drastic reduction in the amount of discussion board action debating the errors! :)

Ken, Very true. Also if they had some officials reazd them maybe could help with clarifying some of the other thimgs we argue about...na, that would realy make it boring>>>LOL

How do you know that they don't already do this? :(

if they do then somebody should be fired..LOL