Complete Pass, Tack on RTP?

[mikesears]

2-34-3: A change of possession occurs when the opponent gains player possession during the down. The penalty says if there is no change of team possession

PENALTY says: 15 yards and a first down from end of last run when last run ends beyond the neutral zone and there has been no change of team possession, or otherwise 15 yards and first down from previous spot

Absent any verbiage in the rule that would support some "point in time" theory, we have to assume change of possession as occuring at some point during the down.

Therefore, if B gains possession DURING THE DOWN, penalty is enforced from the previous spot.

If A had not fumbled (a bad thing) and allowed B to get it (an even worse thing), they would have gotten the foul from the end of their run.

[ppaltice]

I agree with Mike. The rule is fairly cut and dried. I would not try and twist it around too much.

I think this play was in the 97-98 Case Book when the rule was changed to add RTP onto the end of the run, but I cannot find my old case books (5 moves and they have strangely disappeared).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by mikesears

Absent any verbiage in the rule that would support some "point in time" theory, we have to assume change of possession as occuring at some point during the down.

Then on what basis do you think the cited MO interpreter decided it mattered only if it was before A's run beyond the NZ?

[Mike L]

who knew that last run beyond the NZ and no change of team possession were such hard concepts to grasp?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then on what basis do you think the cited MO interpreter decided it mattered only if it was before A's run beyond the NZ?

On the basis of "making %h(t up".

I will say again, the text is clear. The two statements are independent of each other. In a text requiring precise language and definitions (a rule book), it is illogical to me, to put an order or sequence on the events without the appropriate language indiciating that such order exists.

It would be similar to me saying that in order to hit a golf ball, you have to have both a ball and a club. The order in which you obtain these two things is irrelevant, but you must have both in order to do it. Likewise, for end of the run enforcement on RTP, you must have both of those conditions met but the order in which they occur is irrelevant.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by Welpe

On the basis of "making %h(t up".

I will say again, the text is clear. The two statements are independent of each other. In a text requiring precise language and definitions (a rule book), it is illogical to me, to put an order or sequence on the events without the appropriate language indiciating that such order exists.

It would be similar to me saying that in order to hit a golf ball, you have to have both a ball and a club. The order in which you obtain these two things is irrelevant, but you must have both in order to do it. Likewise, for end of the run enforcement on RTP, you must have both of those conditions met but the order in which they occur is irrelevant.

EXACTLY! In order for K to legally possess a free kick, the ball must be grounded and have gone 10 yards. Does the order matter? Nope!

[Welpe]

Mike, that is a perfect example.

[Robert Goodman]

The only way this is going to be decided is when they eventually rewrite it they say whether it's a change or a clarif'n.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

The only way this is going to be decided is when they eventually rewrite it they say whether it's a change or a clarif'n.

Disagree, since it's clear to all but one now.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Then on what basis do you think the cited MO interpreter decided it mattered only if it was before A's run beyond the NZ?

Interpreters make mistakes. At least in Illinois they sometimes do.

And in college, the rule is virtually the same and it is interpreted as I interpret it.