NAFOA POTD for Oct 12, 2007

[JugglingReferee]

Here's today's Play of the Day:

B1 intercepts A1's pass in the end zone where B1 is grabbed by the face mask, then fumbles while in the end zone and (a) the ball rolls back into the field of pay and then goes out of bounds at B's 2-yard line; (b) the ball rolls back into the field of play where B7 recovers the ball at B's 5-yard line.

Fed Ruling:

In both (a) and (b), the basic spot is the end of the run where the fumble occurred, therefore, the 20-yard line.(10.4.6)Casebook.

Canadian Ruling:

In (a), B's interception in the EZ brings the ball out to the 20. Tack on 15 yards for the facemask, and it is B 1D/10 @ B-35.

In (b), B7's recovery at the B-5 is a point of application for the facemask. This would bring the ball to the 20 (5 + 15). But, the 20 yard line is still a point of application, and therefore B 1D/10 @ B-35 is the better option.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: This play is covered by the Federation 2007 rule change (NF 10-4-6). Unfortunately, the wording in the ruling is confusing. On one hand they tell you that the basic spot is the end of the run; then they tell you that's the 20 yard line. The ruling should read: "In both (a) and (b), the basic spot is the end of the run where the fumble occurred, therefore, the 20-yard line.(10.4.6)" Delete the words in red.

[JugglingReferee]

Thanks Bob for the clarification.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Thanks Bob for the clarification.

REPLY: JR...that's not from any Fed document or website. It's just my opinion of how they should clean up the wording to match the new rule and remove any chance of confusion.

[JugglingReferee]

Bob, I've seen the work you've done to educate officials.

There's a thread in the basketball section (not that you didn't know) that leads the posters to believe that the Fed is reading the forum.

Maybe they should read your material, too!

[andy1033]

I agree it is confusing, the point being if the run ends in the end zone it is a touchback when a fouls and the ball rolls out of the end zone. It would have been simply to say that this was a touchback.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by andy1033

I agree it is confusing, the point being if the run ends in the end zone it is a touchback when a fouls and the ball rolls out of the end zone. It would have been simply to say that this was a touchback.

REPLY: But Andy...two problems with that approach:
(1) By definition of touchback (8-5-3), a run ending in the endzone is not enough to rule a touchback unless the ball becomes dead in (or outside of) the endzone, and
(2) the rule which tells you how to handle plays that result in a touchback (10-4-5d) says that the basic spot is the succeeding spot, right? Well, the succeeding spot in this play is B's 5.

This is precisely why rule 10-4-6 was added to the Fed code this year. It's quite clear in saying that the basic spot is the 20-yard line. They just need to fix the wording of the case play. The spot where the run ends is significant only in that it now points you to 10-4-6 as the governing rule. The end of the run is most definitely not the basic spot.

[andy1033]

T

My point was to rule it a touchback by adding another section to the touchback definition.

This would be same as if B intercepted a pass in the end zone ran around and was downed there. The end of the run is in zone and is by rule a touchback

The basic spot for enforcement for a touchback is succeding spot (the 20).


If a touchback was changed to include a foul by opposing team when intercepted in the end zone and is fumbled in the EZ and thereafter the loose ball enters the field of play. this would cover it.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by andy1033

T

My point was to rule it a touchback by adding another section to the touchback definition.

This would be same as if B intercepted a pass in the end zone ran around and was downed there. The end of the run is in zone and is by rule a touchback

The basic spot for enforcement for a touchback is succeding spot (the 20).


If a touchback was changed to include a foul by opposing team when intercepted in the end zone and is fumbled in the EZ and thereafter the loose ball enters the field of play. this would cover it.

REPLY: I understand now, and I guess that could have been an alternative way of doing it. Except...they still could not use 10-4-5d to govern enforcement. The "succeeding spot" would not be the basic spot if they did it your way. The succeeding spot is "...where the ball would next be snapped or free kicked if a foul had not occurred." In this play, if there was no foul, the ball would next be snapped at B's 5. The succeeding spot in this play is not B's 20. Isn't that right?

[andy1033]

No, it would not be the 20. Since there would be no foul the ball be at the result of the play. I said to be a touchback there had to be a foul by the opposing team intercepting the ball in the end zone and the ball enters the field of play. Since there was no foul it is not a touchback and played as normal.