runner down exception

[Robert Goodman]

During scrimmage play, A1 places the ball on the ground for an ostensible place kick, but then leaves the ball in its place on the ground while arising, and pretends to bootleg away with the ball. Meanwhile A2, the ostensible kicker, advances, scoops the ball off the ground and dives forward. At the moment A1 took his hand off the ball, A1 had a knee on the ground.

Is the ball dead or alive in Fed, NCAA, and FC?

Robert in the Bronx

[Sonofanump]

Why am I thinking he ("holder") must arise with the ball for it to remain alive?

[ajmc]

The exception under NF: 4.2.2.a, to a live ball becoming dead, "When a runner.....allows any part of his person other than hand or foot to touch the ground" allows "the place kick holder with his knee(s) on the ground with a teammate in kicking position to catch or recover the snap while his knee(s) is on the ground and "places the ball for a kick, or if he rises to advance, hand kick or pass".

The exception does not allow him to "place the ball on the ground", so his doing so would not be covered by the "Exception" and the ball would be dead because his knee was on the ground while he was in possession of a live ball.

[chymechowder]

Being in Massachusetts, we use NCAA rules:

"Exception: the ball remains alive when an offensive player has simulated a kick or is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate. the ball may be kicked passed or advanced by rule."

I can't comment on the Fed exception, but I don't see an NCAA problem with the original post's scenario.

Leaving it on the ground for the kicker to scoop up is OK I believe. the only possible infraction might be Planned Loose Ball play. but that applies only to "the vicinity of the snapper." and with the holder being seven yards behind the snapper, Planned Loose Ball wouldn't apply in my opinion.

[Ed Hickland]

NCAA and NFHS differ on this subject.

NCAA the holder can handle the ball from his knees. Think it was a game with Louisville and somebody two seasons ago where the holder took the snap on his knee and flipped it over his shoulder to the kicker who ran around end for the score.

The same play under NFHS the ball is dead. The holder could keep it alive by rising.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

NCAA and NFHS differ on this subject.

NCAA the holder can handle the ball from his knees. Think it was a game with Louisville and somebody two seasons ago where the holder took the snap on his knee and flipped it over his shoulder to the kicker who ran around end for the score.

The same play under NFHS the ball is dead. The holder could keep it alive by rising.

And I had it twice this year, once in a varsity game. I blew it dead as the white hat and had to go to the sidelines to explain the difference (essentially). And the coach didn't believe me and then went out and probably rated me very low for my "lack of knowledge of the rules." A broken system if there ever was one.

Originally Posted by Ed Hickland

NCAA the holder can handle the ball from his knees. Think it was a game with Louisville and somebody two seasons ago where the holder took the snap on his knee and flipped it over his shoulder to the kicker who ran around end for the score.

It was LSU who pulled this during the 2007 season. Bo Pelini was their defensive coordinator, and brought the play with him to Nebraska, and tried it against Colorado, damn near costing them the game.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The exception under NF: 4.2.2.a, to a live ball becoming dead, "When a runner.....allows any part of his person other than hand or foot to touch the ground" allows "the place kick holder with his knee(s) on the ground with a teammate in kicking position to catch or recover the snap while his knee(s) is on the ground and "places the ball for a kick, or if he rises to advance, hand kick or pass".

The exception does not allow him to "place the ball on the ground", so his doing so would not be covered by the "Exception" and the ball would be dead because his knee was on the ground while he was in possession of a live ball.

That's what I thought, but it seems funny when you consider instead the situation where, instead of deliberately leaving the ball on the ground (which doesn't meet the Fed or NCAA definition of "pass", BTW), he simply loses control of the ball after placing it for the ostensible kick and play proceeds more or less as previously described, maybe without the bootleg fake.

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 in cx with those other cases, I'm not so sure about the ball's being dead if it's intentionally left loose on the ground. In that case, we've seen that he never intended to do any of the things listed in the exception, but the rule seems not to depend on his intention -- it says "places...or rises" rather than "intends to place...or rise". But then if you don't rule on his intention, it would seem the ball would have to be dead in the last case I brought up -- fumbling with knee down before the ball is placed -- and does anyone want to rule it dead in that situation? So it calls into question the rules committee's intent, which casts doubt on the case I first set forth.

Robert in the Bronx

[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.

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The exception under NF: 4.2.2.a, to a live ball becoming dead, "When a runner.....allows any part of his person other than hand or foot to touch the ground" allows "the place kick holder with his knee(s) on the ground with a teammate in kicking position to catch or recover the snap while his knee(s) is on the ground and "places the ball for a kick, or if he rises to advance, hand kick or pass".

The exception does not allow him to "place the ball on the ground", so his doing so would not be covered by the "Exception" and the ball would be dead because his knee was on the ground while he was in possession of a live ball.

Of course it does. You do not have to use a tee, the holder can hold the ball on the ground for it to be kicked. What Ed is describing is simply a variation of the fumblerooski which is illegal under NFHS rules.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally Posted by daggo66

Of course it does. You do not have to use a tee, the holder can hold the ball on the ground for it to be kicked. What Ed is describing is simply a variation of the fumblerooski which is illegal under NFHS rules.

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?

[Sonofanump]

I’ve got legal on both.

[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.