Overtime Play

[Reffing Rev.]

Standard NFHS 10 yard procedure.

Second Series, First Team failed to score.

3rd and goal at the 8. A7 runs to the 3 and fumbles, ball comes to rest at the 2. Players are diving all over the place. B2 dives on the ball and "palms" it to B5 in the end zone. The palming I could best describe as the way a basketball player would rest the ball on top of one hand.

Now is it batting? It really wasn't my definition of "striking" the ball, it was more 'scooping' the ball. If it is batting, B forced the ball into its own end zone and the down ended with B in possession since it becomes dead in overtime whenever B has possession, this case a safety, Team A wins. If it is batting this would be a penalty for illegal batting half the distance from the previous spot and repeat 3rd down at the 4.
If it is not batting then is palming the ball possession at the 2? If so ball is dead there lets go to 2OT.

Any thoughts.

This is probably one of those had to be there situations, but I'd like to see some philosophy or thoughts on how you might rule in this case.

It never ceases to amaze me the odd things that can happen on a football field.

[whitehat]

Evening Rev. Wow!
My instincts say that as soon as B2 "palms" it I would consider that as possession and call it dead there on the 2. End of series for A. I think that easier, and more fair IMO, than to award a safety. Don't know about the illegal batting. In my mind probably not, but i didn't see it so..anyway those are my thoughts.
Hopefully someone on the crew had a good hard look at it even though it likely was very quick in happening.

[kdf5]

I'm unclear. Was the ball at rest when B "scooped" it? If so, can you ignore that fact? If the ball goes from being at rest to crossing into the EZ and it comes off B's hand, I think you've got to call this either a muff or a bat because I don't think you can say the fumble was the force that put it there.

[bossman72]

Reminds me of this thread:

Old, But Worth Revisiting

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by whitehat

My instincts say that as soon as B2 "palms" it I would consider that as possession and call it dead there on the 2. End of series for A.

First, I agree that this play is HTBT.

But I don't like this answer much, and given that the ball ended up in the EZ before anyone was holding the ball securely, ruling that B2 had "possession" smacks of making things easier for the officials. Given the outcome, B2 is going to have to hold the ball and maybe take a step before I'll say he had possession.

Remember the definition of 'possession' in 2-34: "A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it." B2 "flipping" or "scooping" the ball does not seem to meet the test of holding or controlling the ball after recovering it.

The other point I would make here: the proper football play here is for B2 to jump on this ball and pull it to his chest. If he does something else, he is not demonstrating clear possession and so not entitled to the benefit of the doubt.

So, I'd lean toward illegal batting in the OP. If A takes the penalty, half the distance from the 2 and repeat the down. If A takes the play, safety. If B will have a turn next in OT, A might want the penalty.

[whitehat]

MByron, those are good things to consider.

I am thinking that if B had enough control of the ball to deliberately get it to a teammate then I might judge that as possession. further, I tend to lean (not that you don't) on the side of letting the teams decide the outcome, especially if one call, one that seems at best to be unclear, would declare a winner. In this case, awarding a safety with so much uncertainty here would do just that. So, my second choice I guess would be to call it an illegal bat.

Awarding a safety and ending the game awarding a victory to A after they were clumsy enough to fumble the ball away in the first place seems a bit contrary to the spirit of the game and dangerously close to "over officiating" especially when there remains a legitimate question as to what actually happened. Sometimes there are situations that are unclear.

..just my thoughts...

[whitehat]

what is "HTBT"?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by whitehat

MByron, those are good things to consider.

I am thinking that if B had enough control of the ball to deliberately get it to a teammate then I might judge that as possession. further, I tend to lean (not that you don't) on the side of letting the teams decide the outcome, especially if one call, one that seems at best to be unclear, would declare a winner. In this case, awarding a safety with so much uncertainty here would do just that. So, my second choice I guess would be to call it an illegal bat.

Awarding a safety and ending the game awarding a victory to A after they were clumsy enough to fumble the ball away in the first place seems a bit contrary to the spirit of the game and dangerously close to "over officiating" especially when there remains a legitimate question as to what actually happened. Sometimes there are situations that are unclear.

..just my thoughts...

I agree completely.

[bigjohn]

whitehat, HTBT means Had to be there!

[whitehat]

thanks bigjohn!

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by whitehat

MByron, those are good things to consider.

I am thinking that if B had enough control of the ball to deliberately get it to a teammate then I might judge that as possession. further, I tend to lean (not that you don't) on the side of letting the teams decide the outcome, especially if one call, one that seems at best to be unclear, would declare a winner. In this case, awarding a safety with so much uncertainty here would do just that. So, my second choice I guess would be to call it an illegal bat.

Awarding a safety and ending the game awarding a victory to A after they were clumsy enough to fumble the ball away in the first place seems a bit contrary to the spirit of the game and dangerously close to "over officiating" especially when there remains a legitimate question as to what actually happened. Sometimes there are situations that are unclear.

..just my thoughts...

I sure would love to see a video. I guess I'm stuck on the phrase "ball comes to rest at the 2". I don't see how you can attribute the force to the fumble if the fumble came to rest. Maybe the ball came to rest after it was bounced around, I don't know. But if you look at 8.5.1 Sit B, pushing a player into contact with the ball imparts a new force by the pusher so the definition of muff seems to be pretty much all inclusive except for forced touchings and bats. I would go with muff based partly on 8.5.1.B, but, after re-reading it sounds more like B flipped the ball using the back of his hand. That sounds like a bat. Whatever happened, it sounds like an intentional act.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Awarding a safety and ending the game awarding a victory to A after they were clumsy enough to fumble the ball away in the first place seems a bit contrary to the spirit of the game and dangerously close to "over officiating" especially when there remains a legitimate question as to what actually happened. Sometimes there are situations that are unclear.

I agree with the general principle of not calling fouls unless they're clearly fouls.

I disagree with the general principle of not calling fouls because it might affect the outcome of the game.

[whitehat]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I agree with the general principle of not calling fouls unless they're clearly fouls.

I disagree with the general principle of not calling fouls because it might affect the outcome of the game.

MB, perhpas this is a bit of a semantics thing as I assume you are a very good and conscientous official doing your best to not affect the outcome of any game and doing what seems fair in unclear siuations. I think you may agree with the "blue" general principle more than you might first think. If nothing else the following example may help clarify what I mean and how I approach officiating in general...

For example: Doesn't really matter the score but lets say its a very close game. A32 sweeps left and scores a TD. Yet, A65, clearly holds way over on the right side, 15 yards away and behind the point of attack and not in any way affecting the play. The general principle you disagree with keeps the flag in my pocket. I would hope you would keep the flag in your pocket too despite it being clearly a foul. If we throw that flag, despite being technically correct by rule, we unneccesarily (and unfairly IMO) affect the outcome of the game.

BTW, as R in that case I would likeley wave off the flag and have a philisophical discussion after the game with the crew member who is convinced he needed to throw it.

Just because its a foul does not mean its a flag....

[Reffing Rev.]

It was a JV game I don't think there is any video.

The ball came to rest right in front of the LJ. As our crew conferenced about it, we came to the point, "Is a 'scoop' possession?" Finally, I had asked LJ yes or no, did B have control? He said yes, so we played another OT. If he had said no, I've got no problem calling the safety and ending the game.

[golfnref]

Originally Posted by whitehat

MByron, those are good things to consider.

I am thinking that if B had enough control of the ball to deliberately get it to a teammate then I might judge that as possession. further, I tend to lean (not that you don't) on the side of letting the teams decide the outcome, especially if one call, one that seems at best to be unclear, would declare a winner. In this case, awarding a safety with so much uncertainty here would do just that. So, my second choice I guess would be to call it an illegal bat.

Awarding a safety and ending the game awarding a victory to A after they were clumsy enough to fumble the ball away in the first place seems a bit contrary to the spirit of the game and dangerously close to "over officiating" especially when there remains a legitimate question as to what actually happened. Sometimes there are situations that are unclear.

..just my thoughts...

I think Whitehat nailed it. Totally agree.