Try play
 

On a try starting from the three yard line A1 runs around the end and is at the two yard line and is being tackled by B1 when he reaches the ball out to try to get it to break the plane of the goal line. The ball does not break the plane in his possession and it comes out of his hand and falls into the end zone where A2 recovers. Ruling? NCAA and NF.

Assuming the covering official did not rule that forward progress had been stopped or that A1 was down, then:

NF: Touchdown, 2 points for A
NCAA: Try is over when A2 recovers, no points. (8-3-2-d-5)

NF...Unless you judge that he threw the ball forward (in which case you would have an illegal forward pass and the try would be no good), it sounds to me like you simply have a fumble and a recovery and 2 points for team A. Probably one of those plays you have to see to rule on.

That's the key question I guess. We had this happen only B2 recovered in the end zone so we didn't have to rule on anything. But it got us to talking. Was it a pass or not? Was it intentional or not? Does it matter if it intentional or unintentional?

It's kind of hard to justify giving them a score because if you do it again on any play close to the goal line where it's a last ditch effort. If it's done in the middle of the field then A is risking losing the ball as a fumble. But on a try,or the last playe of the game, then there is nothing to lose. If a runner knows he won't make it anyway just go ahead and fumble/throw the ball forward and maybe your teammate recovers. No risk and high reward.

If you rule it a pass and the ball hits the ground you have an illegal forward pass that is incomplete.. If you don't rule it a pass but rule it a fumble and the ball doesn't hit the ground and A2 catches it then it's a score. Seems like they are getting away with one if don't rule it as an illegal forward pass.

REPLY: Does it matter if it intentional or unintentional? Absolutely. An intentional pushing of the ball forward is an illegal forward pass and you're right. It should be flagged. However, 'intention' is something that needs to be judged by the covering official...at least for Fed. The NCAA and NFL has obviated the need for that kind of judgment by instituting rules governing how to handle fumbles which go forward OOB, or which occur during 4th downs and tries. The NFL rule (also called the "Markbreit rule") had its genesis after a game where Kenny Stabler intentionally 'fumbled' a fourth down carry forward where it was 'muffed' further. It eventually ended up in the endzone where Dave Casper recovered for the game-winning TD. Markbreit was screened and could not see that Stabler's fumble was anything but accidental.

That's what I'm getting at. The NFL and NCAA have solved the problem outright and the NF hasn't. You put it well when you say that it is a pass, and an illegal one at that, if he does it intentionally. But what if the same thing happens unintentionally under NF rules?

The definiton of a pass under NF is, "throwing a ball that is in player possession." Is it implied under NF that a pass must be intentionally thrown ? If it is then under NF this play would be legal. If not then you can say that the kid threw it forward and you'd flag it.

REPLY: You're right. Passing the ball is an intentional throwing of the ball. And if the loss of player possession in your original post was judged to be accidental, then the result (if A recovered) would indeed be a successful conversion of the try and two points for A. Not too unlike a situation where it's 4th and three for A at midfield. A runs to B's 48 where he's hit and fumbles the ball. It rolls out of bounds at B's 42. Fed Result: A, 1-10 at B's 42. NCAA result: B's ball 1-10 at B's 48.

Based on the rules we use in NF during a try, A should fumble the ball every time they aren't sure they are going to make it to the end zone. We allow them to recover and advance or just recover in the end zone and B can never score so this is a no-down-side situation for A.

REPLY: Excellent point...as long as they can properly disguise their 'intentional' fumble.

One way to eliminate this problem would be to institute the NCAA rule allowing B to return the fumble for 2 points. Thus, A would intentionally fumble at its own peril.

I remember it being referred to as the "Dave Casper" rule.

I wonder if the play could have been ruled an illegal pass, although now the rule for the forward fumble takes away the judgment as to whether it is a pass or fumble.

REPLY: It's also known, according to Markbreit, as the "Immaculate Deception." And it certainly would have been ruled at least an incomplete pass if Markbreit could have seen it.