runner down exception

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

And now consider the situation where he catches the snap with at least one knee on the ground and then fumbles before he can place it for a kick or arise to continue play elsewise.

So it calls into question the rules committee's intent, which casts doubt on the case I first set forth.

Robert in the Bronx

Robert, NF: 2.18 describes the "official" definition of a fumble, which does not include purposefully placing, or dropping, a ball on the ground. 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) or unsuccessful attempt to secure possession (muff), but does not cover any deliberate or intentional placing of the ball 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.

I know there is always a possibility, but this scenario even questions that.

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."

[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.