roughing the passer and change of poss.

[DrMooreReferee]

Hello guys.

I'm sure alot of you have gotten your reddings guides by now. I know I have. And as always, I enjoy reading the reddings guide. But I wanted to run this one by you guys to see what you think. If you look on pg.49 of the NFHS reddings guide, its the 1st play on that page. In the play it talks about a pass play where there is roughing of the passer. Afterwards, the pass goes downfield and we have a catch and then a fumble. The ball rolls into and out of B's EZ. NOw, I have always been of the opinion that this is a change of possession. And of course, we then penalize from the previous spot with an automatic 1st down. However, it seems that reddings has changed his stance on this play. He now says that the change of possession doesn't really occur during the down and therefore we penalize from the end of the run (the fumble). I just think this is wrong. If we try and rationalize this type of stuff, then where does it end? We'd also have to take a long look at PSK stuff when the balls rolls out of bounds on kicks. I can't find any sort of editorial change in the rulebook that would explain this change in interpretation. So, why all of a sudden change it?

Comments welcome..

[Bob M.]

REPLY: DrMoore...I concur with Redding's new position that this is not a change of possession and therefore enforcement from the end of the run is appropriate. Take a look at the definition of team possession. It says that for a team to have possession, then either (a) the ball is in their player's possession, or (b) the ball is loose following their player's loss of player possession. In this play, has a B player ever had player possession? No, therefore Team B could never have team possession. Thus, there was no change of possession. In fact, when the ball becomes dead, it is loose following the Team A player's fumble. By definition, when the ball became dead, it was still in Team A's team possession. Again...no change of possession.

Also by definition, "possession" is only significant for a live ball. Possession of a dead ball has no real meaning. In fact, that's the reason that the last criteria for PSK-enforcement was changed this season--because it was always defined in terms of possession of the dead ball. But what they really meant was who was next entitled to put the ball in play.

Why the change in Redding's opinion? Well, he is now the new NCAA rules editor. Back a few years ago, this play was confounding the NCAA rule gurus. At that time the RTP enforcement rule said penalize from the end of the last run "...when that run ends beyond the neutral zone and there is no change of team possession." Some were saying (as you do) that the touchback qualifies as a change of possession; others said no, that the definition of team possession governed any COP discussion. So, to resolve the problems, the rules committee added the words "...during the down" so that the exception now read "...when that run ends beyond the neutral zone and there is no change of team possession during the down." Everyone thought it was fixed until the Rules Editor at the time (John Adams) opined that the touchback, in his opinion was a change of possession during the down. So Redding and the others went with that. However, I believe that Dr. Redding has now issued a much more consistent ruling.

[ODJ]

Just for giggles...
After the A fumble, B recovers, then fumbles into (or out of) the end zone. This would be a safety. Can the penalty for the RFP be enforced on the free kick? I think yes because it is a scoring play.

[ajmc]

Since there was a penalty committed by "B", "A" has the option of accepting the results of the play, or the proscribed penalty option. The "Result of the play" would be a touchback, for "A" fumbling the ball through "B"'s EZ.

Since "A" would likely NEVER choose that option, the fact that there was a "potential" change of possession doesn't matter. The roughing the passer occured during a forward pass that was completed downfield.

Regarding the recovery and subsequent fumble by "B", "A" still gets to choose between EITHER accepting the results of the play (which would be a safety) OR the penalty, which in this case would be from the previous spot (because there was a cop), automatic 1st down for A. They don't get both.

[Welpe]

So if lets see I understand the original play correctly:

Since there was never a change of possesion, the RFP is enforced (due to its special enforcements) at the end of A's last run, which in this case is where the A player lost possesion of the football?

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Welpe

So if lets see I understand the original play correctly:

Since there was never a change of possesion, the RFP is enforced (due to its special enforcements) at the end of A's last run, which in this case is where the A player lost possesion of the football?

Exactly. Bob hit it on the head. By definition B never possessed the ball as it was never caught, recovered, handed or snapped to B.

[DrMooreReferee]

Ok, I'm updating my feelings about this now. I agree with Reddings. And Bob, of course.

When you consider 2-34-3, it all makes much better sense.

[Niner]

I am confused. Could someone explain. "NOw, I have always been of the opinion that this is a change of possession. And of course, we then penalize from the previous spot with an automatic 1st down." I was assuming that this would be penalized from the end of the run regardless of change of possession. Example, A1 runs the ball thru the middle of the line where he is face masked. He continues his run for 30 yards where he is hit and fumbles the ball. B recovers the fumble 5 yards further down the field. The penalty of five yards would be administered from the spot of the fumble (end of run)and A retains the ball. Is this wrong?

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Niner

I am confused. Could someone explain. "NOw, I have always been of the opinion that this is a change of possession. And of course, we then penalize from the previous spot with an automatic 1st down." I was assuming that this would be penalized from the end of the run regardless of change of possession. Example, A1 runs the ball thru the middle of the line where he is face masked. He continues his run for 30 yards where he is hit and fumbles the ball. B recovers the fumble 5 yards further down the field. The penalty of five yards would be administered from the spot of the fumble (end of run)and A retains the ball. Is this wrong?

REPLY: No your're correct. Enforce from the spot of the end of the run (fumble). But your play is a normal running play. We were specifically talking about roughing the passer whose enforcement is an exception to the all-but-one principle which would normally enforce the penalty from the previous spot as a foul during a loose ball play (Fed) or a forward pass play (NCAA). When roughing the passer occurs, the penalty yardage is 'tacked on' to the last run beyond the neutral zone unless there was a change of possession during the down. See either 9-1-2-L (NCAA) or 9-4-4 Penalty (Federation). Both rule codes say that the 'tack on' option is off the table if there is a change of possession during the down. Then enforcement would revert back to previous spot.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: No your're correct. Enforce from the spot of the end of the run (fumble). But your play is a normal running play. We were specifically talking about roughing the passer whose enforcement is an exception to the all-but-one principle which would normally enforce the penalty from the previous spot as a foul during a loose ball play (Fed) or a forward pass play (NCAA). When roughing the passer occurs, the penalty yardage is 'tacked on' to the last run beyond the neutral zone unless there was a change of possession during the down. See either 9-1-2-L (NCAA) or 9-4-4 Penalty (Federation). Both rule codes say that the 'tack on' option is off the table if there is a change of possession during the down. Then enforcement would revert back to previous spot.

Bob,

Is this the form of "your / you're" to use when one isn't quite sure what form to use? LOL Thanks for the chuckle! I might use it some day.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

Bob,

Is this the form of "your / you're" to use when one isn't quite sure what form to use? LOL Thanks for the chuckle! I might use it some day.

REPLY: Can't trust us Americans when it comes to English !!!