runner down exception

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Robert, NF: 2.18 describes the "official" definition of a fumble, which does not include purposefully placing, or dropping, a ball on the ground.

And, at least last I looked, subtly different from NCAA's, which defined "fumble" by exclusion, and would (or at least did) classify leaving the ball on the ground, even deliberately, as a fumble. But that's neither here nor there in this case, because the dead ball exception didn't invoke fumbles.

The exception to 4.2.2.a, does provide guidance for a muffed snap or "fumble". The exception's intent seems pretty evident, in that it provides for an inadvertent loss of possession (fumble)

It does? I'm sure everybody would rule it that way, but it doesn't say so. So I agree the intent is clear in that case, but I don't think it's clear in the case of deliberately leaving the ball on the ground. This is one of those situations where, because you wouldn't construe the rule literally in one case, it makes me wonder whether it should be construed literally in the other. It wouldn't be a difficult factual judgment at all, because a player just getting up & away from the ball is undoubtedly doing so by design, but it is a difficult judgment of intent of the rule.

If the snap had been muffed, no matter, because then you wouldn't have a player in possession of the ball with a knee on the ground.

Consider, however, that the potential placekick holder would normally be a minimum of 5 yards behind the LOS, so there is little, if any whatsoever, potential benefit of a player picking up a ball left, 5 or more yards behind the line, trying to dive through defenders converging on the exact spot where the ball was left.

Probably counting on the other team to follow the holder, who has gotten up, turned away, and not made any passing motion with the ball. Similar in effect to a Hugo special, fumblerooski, that sort of thing, but not specifically illegal. Meanwhile players trying to block the kick will over-run the spot, trying to cross its trajectory.

Robert in the Bronx

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

A "planned loose ball infraction" is not applicable as NF 7.3.8 describes the infraction as, "Any A player on his line of scrimmage may not advance a planned loose ball in the vicinity of the snapper."

That's actually 7.2.8.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Let's go a step further.

Ball is snapped to the holder, unable to field the ball it bounds off his hands to the potential kicker who grabs it and runs for a touchdown. Legal?

Or, ball is snapper to the holder who bats the ball backwards to the potential kickerwho runs for a touchdown. Legal?

What is the rule?

That's a very interesting play that requires a lot of digging for references. I would rule both legal. First nothing in 4.2 would make it a dead ball. Second, since the snap by definition is a backward pass, nothing in 9.7.3 makes it illegal either unless your holder has an ineligible number.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

Let's go a step further.

Ball is snapped to the holder, unable to field the ball it bounds off his hands to the potential kicker who grabs it and runs for a touchdown. Legal?

Or, ball is snapper to the holder who bats the ball backwards to the potential kickerwho runs for a touchdown. Legal?

What is the rule?

If the holder "Muffs" the snap, which is subsequently caught by another player and advanced, nothing has happened to cause a live ball to become dead, so TD.

The second option is just too silly to ever happen twice. Some fool may try it once, but whoever called such a silly thing would likely be fired, and possibly exiled from the game. However, since a "snap" is defind as a pass (NF: 2.40.1) which fits the definition of "backwards" (NF: 2.31.5) it complys with the restrictions related to "batting a pass" (NF: 9.7.3) and still doesn't cause a live ball to become dead, it would still result in a TD.

Robert: The horse you're trying to ride has already been processed through the glue factory. It's way too late to breath life back into it. Trying to defend something clearly understood to mean one thing, to imply the opposite, simply to satisfy the most extreme semantic possibility, is an endless quest, that leads nowhere.

[parepat]

I think the original post is legal.