NFL rules questions

[Robert Goodman]

Probably I should've quoted a little more of this one:

"The runner is an offensive player who is in possession of a live ball [cross-ref. omitted], i.e. holding the ball or carrying it in any direction."

Since NFL's definition of "placekick" ends, "The ball may be held in position by a teammate.", I conclude that the type of "hold" on the ball referred to in the first one includes that in the other.

I'm omitting place references, because it's likely some of them have been renumbered since the edition I have, but unlikely that their wording has changed.

These are pretty old rules, at least some of the language probably dating to a time they shared NCAA's, and it appears they muddied the water by that "i.e." phrase, which has the potential of providing conflicting definitions of player possession in the case of a live ball. I think they should be read in such a way as to make them conform to each other, so that holding the ball be considered sufficient to have possession, and since the placekick definition uses the word "held", no judgement is needed -- that they're saying by definition that the ball being placed is in possession of the placer.

The alternative would be to consider the placement of the ball on the ground with the hand still on it to be a fumble, "any act, other than a pass or legal kick, which results in loss of player possession." That would make a live-ball placekick an act of kicking a live loose ball. Unfortunately the same rule book says, "No player may deliberately kick any loose ball or ball in player's possession.", which apparently makes a live ball place kick illegal whether the ball is deemed loose or in the holder's possession! Probably an editorial error omitting the word "opposing" before "player's", huh? If we make that mental correction, then it would seem the ball being placed for the kick would have to remain in the placer's possession, else making the kicking of the ball illegal.

[Adam]

I think you're reading way too much into the wording here.

It seems clear to me that the exception allowing the holder to have his knee on the ground in all other codes would apply to a holder who gets touched by a defender in the NFL. The fact that it isn't worded accordingly is a result of the fact that it's obvious, and anyone actually working an NFL game would know this.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Adam

I think you're reading way too much into the wording here.

It seems clear to me that the exception allowing the holder to have his knee on the ground in all other codes would apply to a holder who gets touched by a defender in the NFL. The fact that it isn't worded accordingly is a result of the fact that it's obvious, and anyone actually working an NFL game would know this.

No, I don't think it works that way because of the history of this rule difference. It was NCAA that introduced the rule providing that a runner was down on touching the ground other than with hands or feet, and so it was only NCAA and Fed that required that exception. Therefore the combination of touching an opponent and (other than with hands or feet) the ground was needed only in NFL rules. It would be strange to apply a provision from codes where the exception was necessary to one where it is not necessary.