|
|
|
Fri Aug 18, 2006, 10:45am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Help me out here RU. Why isn't the Mo execption in effect ?
|
|
Fri Aug 18, 2006, 12:14pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Under NCAA rules, the loss of possession in the EZ, combined with the loose ball coming out of the EZ into the field of play, means the momentum exception will no longer apply on this play.
The enforcement spot then by rule becomes the "end of the related run". In this case, the "end of the related run" is the spot of the fumble in the EZ.
__________________
"It's easy to get the players, Getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part." - Casey Stengel
|
|
Fri Aug 18, 2006, 12:47pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Canadian Ruling
It apears that the Canadian rules allow for no major issues with these situations.
1. The A hold would be enforced from PLS. Assuming that the hold occured in the EZ while the ball was in the EZ, there is no safety and the penalty is enforced from the B20. So B should decline the A foul and take possession on the B10 (Team A would of course accept to nullify the TD) and will have one more play to try and score. 2. An illegal fwd pass is enforced as L10 and down repeated. So B's best play would be to accept the penalty forcing A to take another snap on the A1. Declining the penalty would end the game. 3. The penalty for intentional grounding from the EZ is a safety. Since the result of the play was an incomplete pass B would want to decline and accept the play which would give team B possession on downs. (Why in the U.S. rules is it not an incomplete pass if the foul is declined - that is the result of the play is it not?) 4. We would have two fouls on the play: Restraining Zone foul (hitting a player trying to catch a punt) and Rough Play (vicious hit on a punt receiver). The first is 15 yards and the second is 25 yards. So this would give team R 1st and 10 at the R50. We have no free kick provisions so the best that A could have is another down at the B1.5 yard line.
|
|
Sat Aug 19, 2006, 08:05am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
|
|
Mon Aug 21, 2006, 01:27am
|
|||
|
|||
|
From the original post:
"While few people know that a free kick for FG can be attempted following a fair catch/awarded fair catch, even fewer know that this provision continues if a foul during the down after the fair catch/awarded fair catch causes the down to be replayed as it is in this case. Also, Team A is allowed to request where the ball be placed for a free kick for FG." While I know this sounds right, can someone post the actual NF rule(s) for this? thanks
|
|
Mon Aug 21, 2006, 08:53am
|
|||
|
|||
|
NF 4-1-2: "A free kick shall also put the ball in play: ... (c) When a free kick is chose following a fair catch, an awarded fair catch, the replay of a down which follows a fair catch or an awarded fair catch."
Also, NF 4-3-6 specifies the situations in which A may designate the spot from which the ball is put in play between the inbounds lines. Interestingly, it lists after a(n) (awarded) fair catch, but not on replays of those. So if you make a fair catch, snap the ball, and accept a foul that occurs during that play, you may now change your mind and free kick, but you don't get to set the spot of the ball.
|
|
Mon Aug 21, 2006, 10:30pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
This one doesn't involve a foul but is a play I hate. 4th and goal from the half yard line for A following a timeout with 1 second to play. If A (visitor) scores, they go to the playoffs. If they don't score, B (home) goes to the playoffs. A lines up with a full backfield and, back in my days as a Linesman, I'm saying to myself, "Don't run up the middle." Of course, they run a power right up the middle and we have 22 guys in a big pile and I have to decide which team goes to the playoffs.
It only happened once - I dove in the pile, found the ball, found the goal line, ruled touchdown and left in a hurry. Home team coach caught up with us and yelled at me "Are you sure that was a touchdown?" I only said, "I'm as sure as I can be with 22 guys piled on top of the ball. I got there as soon as I could and made the best ruling I could." Surprisingly, he smiled, and said it was a tough call to make, then said we did a nice job and shook our hands. (whew!!!!)
|
|
Tue Aug 22, 2006, 07:56am
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
__________________
Mike Sears
|
|
Tue Aug 22, 2006, 08:35am
|
|||
|
|||
|
I don't see a real problem with number 3. Consider that play from the point of view of the intentional grounding not happening ... what do you have - a sack in the endzone for a safety - same thing you have with the intentional grounding (whether accepted or not).
Basically you have a coach complaining because he can't decline a safety. Sorry sir. My pet peeve with the rules (and one you touch on in the first example) is ANY play where the result would be a touchback, but a foul occurs in the end zone, turning a play that could NOT result in a safety had the player been tackled INTO a safety because of basically a glitch in the rules. There are a number of sitches that fit this bucket... but it makes no sense logically. The reason a BIB or Hold in the EZ is normally a safety is because the illegal act prevented the possibility of a safety. But if the runner is simply in the EZ after a change of possession (punt, kickoff, fumble, int), the illegal act simply prevented the ballcarrier from being tackled in the EZ - and NOT a safety. If I had the power to change one rule - I would change this one to enforce from the 20.
__________________
"Many baseball fans look upon an umpire as a sort of necessary evil to the luxury of baseball, like the odor that follows an automobile." - Hall of Fame Pitcher Christy Mathewson
|
|
Tue Aug 22, 2006, 08:49am
|
|||
|
|||
|
In Canada, we could never have a foul award points which would not have been awarded with no foul and the player tackled in the EZ.
So an interception in the EZ, and a BIB would be applied from the 20 and would not be a safety.
|
|
Tue Aug 22, 2006, 03:00pm
|
|||
|
|||
|
Quote:
Jeez, this is the third mistake for me in as many days. Must be something about the air down here in Austin. 
|
 |
| Bookmarks |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
