NFHS Question 3 of week 3

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by MJT
(snip) ...They are slightly different though cuz...

REPLY: And this is my precise problem with the way the Fed has chosen to deal with this situation (read: head in the sand). The rules do not support the two case plays cited. And neither play contains any relevant information to determine when to apply the case ruling versus when to apply the rules as written. So we don't know what to do if the situation is "slightly (or even grossly) different." NF 10-4-5d says that the basic spot is the succeeding spot when the result of the play is a touchback. Neither of the case plays resulted in a touchback. Also, even if you want to take that giant leap, what's the 'succeeding spot' in the two case plays? In 10.4.5G (a) it's B's 2, and in (b) it's B's 5. Right? In 10.4.5H, it's B's 2. How did we get to B's 20? Until, and unless, the Fed gets its act together and writes the rules to cover this situation, we're going to be seeing these posts and hearing the arguments over and over. It's been 10 seasons (1996) since the Fed added the rule moving the basic spot to the suceeding spot when "...the final result of a down is a touchback" and we've been arguing about these two plays ever since. That change was made to remove a huge inequity in the rules and was a good change. Don't we think it's about time to have the rules 'catch up' with two rogue case plays that do nothing but cause confusion?