NFHS: Where do we put the ball?

[DJ_NV]

4/10 @ K-40.

K1 kicks a short punt that is bouncing and touches R1 at the R-45. The ball bounces back behind the LOS and is recovered by K2 who throws a pass from the K-38 that falls incomplete.

[whitehat]

Good one...lets see here:

I am thinking since R touched the ball beyond the LOS we are going to award a new series to k since they recovered it. Also, since the rules prohibit a forward pass after a change of possession (which we have in effect here) we also have an illegal forward pass by K after the COP. Since the loss of down does not apply in this situation (since possession has changed during the play) it will be K's ball 1/10 from their own 33 yd line (after the 5 yard penalty for IFP from the spot of the pass).

just edited this... ignore this post...i found a better answer below ;-P

[DJ_NV]

Ok but we don't have a COP per 2-34-3. In order for there to be a COP, there needs to be player possession as defined in 2-34-1. Since R only touched the ball and did not control it, we don't have a COP by definition even though PSK philossophy kind of dictates that intent during a kick. Still, it's not supported by rule. If we don't have a COP, then we can't have an IFP per 7-5-2-a. I agree with everything else you said about the new series.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DJ_NV

Ok but we don't have a COP per 2-34-3. In order for there to be a COP, there needs to be player possession as defined in 2-34-1. Since R only touched the ball and did not control it, we don't have a COP by definition even though PSK philossophy kind of dictates that intent during a kick. Still, it's not supported by rule. If we don't have a COP, then we can't have an IFP per 7-5-2-a. I agree with everything else you said about the new series.

But K can advance the ball and will end up with the ball if they do not do anything else with the ball. So I am not sure this would not be on some level a COP. But I am not sure about that, but I thought that needed to be pointed out.

Peace

[DJ_NV]

I'm certainly not arguing with the philosophy, in fact that's what started this fun debate in our local association. It's the rule support that we're looking for here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by DJ_NV

I'm certainly not arguing with the philosophy, in fact that's what started this fun debate in our local association. It's the rule support that we're looking for here.

I am just saying that K has a ball behind the LOS that R touched beyond the LOS. If the ball is downed at the spot where K had it, we are giving the ball back to K. So I cannot see any reason why they would not still have the ball at the end of this sequence. I am not arguing, just saying I do not see any reason to give the ball to R or have a loss of down penalty portion enforced.

Peace

[bossman72]

There was no COP on this play. K snapped the ball, and K is going to snap the ball on the next play - no COP. Legal forward pass. At the end of the down it will be 1 and 10 at the 40.

Besides, doesn't the word break-down of the phrase "Change of Possession" imply that the other team Possess the ball at one point in time during the down?

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by DJ_NV

Ok but we don't have a COP per 2-34-3. In order for there to be a COP, there needs to be player possession as defined in 2-34-1. Since R only touched the ball and did not control it, we don't have a COP by definition even though PSK philossophy kind of dictates that intent during a kick. Still, it's not supported by rule. If we don't have a COP, then we can't have an IFP per 7-5-2-a. I agree with everything else you said about the new series.

You are correct. There is no change of possession during the down on this play. Since R did touch the ball, a new series will be awarded to the team in possession during the down. K's pass it not illegal because it is not after a change of possession but it is incomplete. So what you have is a legal forward incomplete pass, which is returned to the previous spot. K is the team last in possession during the down so they are awarded a new series because of R's touching of the scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone.

The final result? 1st and 10 for K at the K-40. Good luck explaining that one.

[whitehat]

Just found this sentance in the Redding guide top left of page 63. Its in the context of the same play in the OP but without the pass:

"If the ball remains behind the neutral zone or returns there, either team may advance it (6-2-2 and 6-2-3)."
Then an example is given like OP except no pass involved..then next para continues.. "In fact, team K may run, pass or even kick again since team possession has not changed."

so, looks like we have an incmplete legal forward pass that is for all practical purposes ignored. we go back to previous spot and award 1/10.

Does it seem like to anyone else that the incomplete forward pass is ingored? ...almost like an extra down within a down is inadvertantly awarded.... wierd!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Does it seem like to anyone else that the incomplete forward pass is ingored? ...almost like an extra down within a down is inadvertantly awarded.... wierd!

I wouldn't say it's ignored, but it is "funny" to get a freebie like that. But then, there are all these cases where a penalty can be accepted when the next down was going to be first anyway, and the down is "repeated" yet it's still going to be first down, when by all rights it should be a zeroth down. So maybe the extremely rare case brought up in this thread is just the first installment of payback for the loss of all those zeroth downs.

[kdf5]

I agree with welpe. K gets to throw an incomplete pass and get a new series after the down ends. "Change of possession" is defined in Rule 2 and it says that there has to be player possession, which didn't happen in this play.

[Jim D.]

Welpe had it right. A K does get sort of a free play on this, but they used it unwisely. Let's assume K recovers this ball and instead of passing, they run the ball and pick up 8 yards. They are still going to get a first down, but they managed to advance the ball up to the 48 yard line. The team that tried the pass also gets a first down, but they are still back at the 40 after the incompletion. Both situations give K a "free" shot, but the run is better than a pass.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Jim D.

Welpe had it right. A K does get sort of a free play on this, but they used it unwisely. Let's assume K recovers this ball and instead of passing, they run the ball and pick up 8 yards. They are still going to get a first down, but they managed to advance the ball up to the 48 yard line. The team that tried the pass also gets a first down, but they are still back at the 40 after the incompletion. Both situations give K a "free" shot, but the run is better than a pass.

What, you're assuming it's known in advance the pass will be incomplete, or that if complete it would gain less than a run?

[merlin]

I would think that there would have to be illegal men downfield in this scenario as well.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by merlin

I would think that there would have to be illegal men downfield in this scenario as well.

Illegal men? What, no visas?