Progress Stopped, or Play On?

[Robert Goodman]

I wouldn't have it as a dead ball, but of course it's arguable. The question about foward progress being stopped is, as always, for how long? I believe the intention of the rule is to allow the offense any reasonable chance to advance the ball. In Canadian rules, in addition to having progress stopped, the ballcarrier must be unable or unwilling to part with the ball. No such exception in Federation or NCAA, and indeed in NCAA rules it says that when in question, the ball is dead. Still, I think it's within the spirit of the rule to allow for plays such as in the video.

However, there are additional considerations. Was this forward handing of the ball? It's fairly clear that the ball exchange occurred after both backs had been driven back behind their scrimmage line, so even if the ball was handed forward, I think it was done legally.

But the next question, if this was in NCAA rules, is, was this handing the ball or a fumble? It's not clear that the original ballcarrier actually handed the ball off rather than having it stripped by a teammate, in which case it would be a fumble. If that's the case, you have 4th down recovery of a fumble by someone other than the fumbler and before a change in team possession, so in NCAA the ball would've been dead there anyway.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I wouldn't have it as a dead ball, but of course it's arguable. The question about foward progress being stopped is, as always, for how long? I believe the intention of the rule is to allow the offense any reasonable chance to advance the ball. In Canadian rules, in addition to having progress stopped, the ballcarrier must be unable or unwilling to part with the ball. No such exception in Federation or NCAA, and indeed in NCAA rules it says that when in question, the ball is dead. Still, I think it's within the spirit of the rule to allow for plays such as in the video.

However, there are additional considerations. Was this forward handing of the ball? It's fairly clear that the ball exchange occurred after both backs had been driven back behind their scrimmage line, so even if the ball was handed forward, I think it was done legally.

But the next question, if this was in NCAA rules, is, was this handing the ball or a fumble? It's not clear that the original ballcarrier actually handed the ball off rather than having it stripped by a teammate, in which case it would be a fumble. If that's the case, you have 4th down recovery of a fumble by someone other than the fumbler and before a change in team possession, so in NCAA the ball would've been dead there anyway.

This is a Federation game. Let's keep the discussion centered on those rules for the moment.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

This is a Federation game. Let's keep the discussion centered on those rules for the moment.

The are the same as it relates to forward progress, so this should not be an issue for anyone.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The are the same as it relates to forward progress, so this should not be an issue for anyone.

Peace

There is a difference in NCAA. In NCAA, it WOULD matter whether this is a fumble (it's 4th down) or a handoff (and if so, forward or backward). Personally, I have a legal handoff if the play were not already dead.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The are the same as it relates to forward progress, so this should not be an issue for anyone.

Peace

I agree regarding forward progress but I was talking about the discussion going off into the area of the 4th down fumble rule and other NCAA rules that are only tangential to the discussion. mtn asked for specific feedback of his play so let's stay focused on that.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I agree regarding forward progress but I was talking about the discussion going off into the area of the 4th down fumble rule and other NCAA rules that are only tangential to the discussion. mtn asked for specific feedback of his play so let's stay focused on that.

You are right, I was only referring to the forward progress portion. But this is not really a fumble anyway, so I was not even trying to think about that part.

Peace

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

In Canadian rules, in addition to having progress stopped, the ball carrier must be unable or unwilling to part with the ball.

I've never heard of this before.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I've never heard of this before.

Maybe it was the ruling in 1942.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Rich

Maybe it was the ruling in 1942.

No, but you're on the right track. I was thinking of a CFL-specific rule, but I see now the criterion is more specific too, that "he cannot throw the ball". However, the wording I had in mind was much older and not particular to Canadian football but to rugby, concerning the standing tackle.

The criteria I would look for as to where & when the ball becomes dead are:

1. Did the runner stop moving in the direction he seemed to want to go in?

2. Did it become evident that the runner would not be able to break from the tackler's grasp, or would otherwise go down in possession of the ball?

Unless criterion 2 were met, I wouldn't rule that the ballcarrier's progress was "stopped". If criterion 1 were satisfied before criterion 2, then I would rule the ball dead at the place & time where criterion 1 was satisfied.

Meanwhile Fed's wording regarding forward handing, "the yard line where the runner is positioned", seems to assume the runner to be a single point mass! It would be absurd to interpret this on the basis of the foremost point of the runner, for the entire ball could never be ahead of that while in his possession, so what do you go by, his center of mass? Split the distance between his feet?

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Meanwhile Fed's wording regarding forward handing, "the yard line where the runner is positioned", seems to assume the runner to be a single point mass! It would be absurd to interpret this on the basis of the foremost point of the runner, for the entire ball could never be ahead of that while in his possession, so what do you go by, his center of mass? Split the distance between his feet?

Sometimes you just have to officiate, Robert!

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Rich

Sometimes you just have to officiate, Robert!

Pretty much. We get paid good money () for our judgment.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Meanwhile Fed's wording regarding forward handing, "the yard line where the runner is positioned", seems to assume the runner to be a single point mass! It would be absurd to interpret this on the basis of the foremost point of the runner, for the entire ball could never be ahead of that while in his possession, so what do you go by, his center of mass? Split the distance between his feet?

Paralysis by analysis

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by APG

Paralysis by analysis

Well, they have something that purports to distinguish in definition between forward & backward handing, but when you look at it, it doesn't. But they could've. In Rugby Union the equivalent determination would be made under the offside law according to the players' foot position. In NFL the distinction is purported to be regarding the motion given ball by the "passer", but when the ball is handed by one player to another with no air between, then it gets to be like the infamous tuck rule.

[Canned Heat]

I have him stopped....I think the crew got caught by surprise on this one...even though it was 4th and 4 and looked like offense had nothing to lose essentially by pulling the rabbit out of the hat.

Anyone else happen to catch the 3/4 length sleeve officials shirt on the big guy at about 1:17:30? Looks like half officials shirt and half 80's concert t-shirt all in one.

[APG]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Well, they have something that purports to distinguish in definition between forward & backward handing, but when you look at it, it doesn't. But they could've. In Rugby Union the equivalent determination would be made under the offside law according to the players' foot position. In NFL the distinction is purported to be regarding the motion given ball by the "passer", but when the ball is handed by one player to another with no air between, then it gets to be like the infamous tuck rule.

I'm not sure, nor care what they do in rugby. And I'm not sure what you're trying to claim is the NFL rule nor how it relates to the tuck rule.

NFL:

Rule 3, Section 13, Article 1

(c) A forward handoff occurs when the ball is handed (regardless of the direction of the movement of the ball) to a player who is in advance of a teammate whose hands he takes or receives it.