There's still no rules support for the 2004 casebook ruling but it's changed still with no rules support.

The infamous 10.4.5J has been changed (no asterisk though) so it's subtle. Now it's 10.4.5H

I'll restate the case play followed by the "new" ruling....

B1 intercept A's pass in B's endzone. B2 clips A9 at B's 10-yard line 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.

New Ruling:

The penalty is enforced under the all-but-one principle. The end of the run is the goal line and the basic spot is the 20-yard line. It goes on to say the foul would be enforced half the distance, first and 10 for B on the 5-yard line.

For those of you new to this in 2004 it said...

The end of the run is the 2-yard line as B's fumble forced the ball out of bounds. Enforced half the distance with B's ball 1st and 10 from the 1.

REPLY: I had seen that. As you said, still no rules support, but now the ruling is shooting from the other hip. I guess after a few years, they finally realized that their original ruling was downright laughable. This one is slightly less so.

I made need some help on this one. Doesn't it make a difference that the ball was in the end zone when the foul was committed? Or would a "safety" only occur in this case if the spot of the foul was actually in the end zone? Help please.

REPLY: GreyHare...here's the problem: The foul occurred during a running play. The basic spot should be the end of the run...right? Which, according to 10-3-3b is the spot where B1 fumbles the ball. If we strictly applied the rules, the all-but-one principle would make the enforcement spot in B's end zone and result in a safety. However, the force that put the ball into B's end zone was A's pass. So I can see the Fed's reluctance to award A two points in this situation. In fact, I can even see a rationale for making the basic spot B's 20 as they apparently did. But...there is absolutely NO rules support for this. When they say in their ruling that "...the end of the run is the goal line and the basic spot is the 20-yard line," they are contradicting themselves. Some people try to hang their hats on 10-4-5d but that's wrong for two reasons: (1) the result of the play is not a touchback, and (2) even if you wanted to use 10-4-5d, it says that the basic spot is the succeeding spot. What's the succeeding spot in this play, i.e. where is the spot where the ball would next be put in play had no foul occurred? It would be B's 2 yardline...not B's 20. Right?

So all we have is a standalone case play with no guidelines for when to apply it. The Fed has conveniently redefined the basic spot for this one play and doesn't tell us when to do so in the future. Would it make a difference if the fumble was recovered rather than rolling out of bounds? I don't know. What if it was a foul by A instead of by B. Would we still enforce from B's 20? I don't know that either.

The bottom line is that the Fed needs to revise the rules to handle this situation. A case play that defies the existing rules and provides no guidelines for when to apply it only adds to confusion. And it's been confusing for about five years now!

Thanks Bob. I have a greater understanding of it now, although it may be a "hard sell" to the opposing coach who wants to see the ball spotted differently. Thanks again!

If it's enforced half the distance why is the ball at the five?

Because the foul occurred behind the "basic" spot, if you can call it that. So, the enforcement spot is the 10 as the foul occurred there.

I understand the conversation about lack of clear rules support for this situation, however, I think you can get to it. Look at 10.4.5 Situation G. The Fed is clearly stating that the basic spot is the end of the run where the fumble occured. Because that spot is in the end zone then for all practical purposes, the "result" is a touchback. Here it really doesn't matter if A or B would recover the ball, because the option to decline or accept A's penalty remains with B. Looking at 10.4.5 Situation H, the touchback "result" remains if the ball goes out of bounds, whether in the end zone or not. The "result" changes if A recovers the ball, since they would then likely decline the penalty on B.
I would like to see the Fed install some language that clearly addressed this type of situation, but for now, I think the Fed's intent gives at least general direction. Hopefully they'll take the next step and fix it next year.

Kentref, you bring up a great point with 10-4-5-g. That caseplay makes it look like if the end of run (fumble) is in the EZ, "the basic spot is the EOR (fumble), therefore, the 20 yard line." So if the fumble was in the EZ, even though the ball was fumbled out and recovered or goes OOB's, the enforcement is "as if" we had a TB. Why... cuz A's force put the ball into the EZ, so if the fumble occured in EZ, we cannot enforce from the EOR, and thus the basic spot is the 20 yard line.
Now I know this "20 yard line basic spot is not spelled out in 10-4, cuz it is more like 10-4-4, than 10-4-5, but we do have 2 case plays telling us that if the EOR is in the EZ and the final result is not a TB, but A's force put the ball in the EZ, we enforce from the 20.