Progress Stopped, or Play On?
 

Oh gurus of the gridiron, lay your wisdom on me! If the embed doesn't work right for you, the play is at 1:17:15 or so in the video.

Ball carrier A35 is hit and starts to be driven backward, and at *about* the same time teammate A1 comes in, rips the ball from him and takes off, eventually scoring a touchdown.

https://vimeo.com/51839274#t=4635

Would you have ruled this play dead (forward progress stopped)? Or would you have allowed it to continue?

You can see what my crew did (I'm the R) and on first glance I think I agree with my L's decision, but I'd be curious what the community thinks.

On a secondary note, this was just my third Varsity R assignment. If anybody picks up anything for me, please don't hesitate to pass it along. Thanks much!

I have progress stopped.

I have progress stopped as well.

Ask yourself this --- if a DEFENDER had ripped the ball out at that moment, would you have a fumble?

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.

I would.

Well... if you would, then the play above is legal, in your judgement.

Me, I've seen many many plays exactly like this where the ball is stripped after it is clear the runner is no longer moving forward. I've blown them all dead, and never heard a peep from a supervisor. Somehow I'm guessing that if I'd blown none of them dead, I would definitely have heard something at some point along the way.

Agreeing with all the other officials who have posted so far, I have progress stopped.

The wing needs to kill it, sell the call, and keep selling it if necessary.

@mtn335: this is forward handing, but not illegal handing. Why not illegal?

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.

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

Thanks, all, for your feedback!

I'm not convinced there was forward handing - it's tough to see here, but I think A1 reached in and took the ball, and A35 permitted him to do so - but if it was: both players are behind the neutral zone and the handing is to a player who was on the end of the line. Legal per NFHS 7-3-2 (I looked up the citation, but knew the answer). Handing could have also been to a back, or to a non-end lineman who had turned to face his own goal line and was at least 1 yard behind his line of scrimmage.

Me too.

I am a little torn. I can clearly see why this play was let go. For one the player from this angle is not in totally control of the defenders and kind of going sideways too. I can see why play was stopped but can see why play was let go. I am probably going to let this go without the benefit of another angle.

Peace

You don't rule progress stopped the second he's pushed back. You watch the action to see if he is ever able to get out of the action and advance. You may ultimately rule forward progress after the ball the fumbled but it's because you are taking the totality of the action into account. If the ball is handed, passed or stripped by a teammate as quickly as this one, I am OK with a live ball and play continuing. If you do rule forward progress make sure you sell it well and I think you can be supported on this play. It's a judgement call and there is no black and white correct answer.

Nailed it!

It was forward handing:
"Forward handing occurs when the runner releases the ball when the
entire ball is beyond the yard line where the runner is positioned." 2-19-2

Not illegal handing, for the reasons you gave.

I read that definition to mean that it's forward if he holds it out forward. If it's in at his body, then wouldn't the ball be at the yard line where he's positioned? Would it be forward handing if a stationary player, facing the opponent's goal line with the ball tucked against his stomach, did nothing while a teammate came and took the ball out of his hands? (I ask out of inexperience, not trying to start an argument :-) )

This is where I'm coming down here. I guess I wouldn't fault my wing whichever way he went - he made a decision on a borderline play (and obviously I had his back with the Red sideline!), and we're movin' on.

You and I will probably never agree on this. :) I don't believe in giving the ball carrier a second bite at the apple. Is he held so that his forward progress is stopped? That's what needs to be judged. The rest has no bearing.

I happen to believe he was in this play.

Holding the ball out away from the body is not necessary for any handing.

The situation you describe is forward handing. When the runner holds the ball in front of him in this situation, they are on different yard lines ('yard line' is a defined term, and refers to more than just the 1 or 5 yard increments marked on the field: 2-26-7).

If the runner is sideways (perpendicular to the goal lines) and holds the ball in front of him, then the ball is at the same yard line. Handing the ball here would not constitute forward handing.

Gotcha. Thanks!

8-man? Cool.

Nice crowd.:rolleyes:

Forward progress stopped. Ball should have been spotted about 1 1/2 yards forward from where the ball exchange took place.

I have progress stopped.

I've never heard of this before.

Maybe it was the ruling in 1942. ;)

I have FP stopped. The defenders had him controlled, & pushed him back 2 yards.

This definition proves it was not forward handing. The entire ball was not beyond the runner... it was beside the runner.

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?

Sometimes you just have to officiate, Robert!

Paralysis by analysis

Most have seen the clip, so why not just remove it and leave the url?

yes, I know some prefer the embedded clips (not me), but in this case ...

Thanks for the suggestion. That's what I've done. I've deleted the chatter between moderators that we should've had in the moderator forum.

I agree 100%.

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

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 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.

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.

D'oh! It was NCAA that in its interpretations used to reference the ball movement that NFL disclaimed. They also specified, "An exchange is legal during a run after team possession changes and the ball is exchanged by teammates while both players are facing each other at less than a 45-degree angle to a sideline. [cross-reference omitted]" They've eliminated both criteria since then.

My point was that rules writers can be more specific in providing for a determination like this regarding handing the ball off, and I see no reason they shouldn't be. In the current case for NCAA & Fed, all they'd need is a definition of the yard line where a player is positioned. However, for ease of administration, I think they could do better than that.

I have him stopped. Once he was stopped and moved back I am killing this, and selling hard. Too many bad things can happen.

Very good discussion.

We had a similar play where progress was stopped and B players rips almost simultaneously, with 94 yds of clear field in front of him. I killed it and sold it it immediately. B coach was not happy with the call and still remembers (and reminds me) to this day.

As mentioned earlier, this crew got caught off guard- always be ready for the unexpected. It is very easy to get comfortable in the flow of a well played game and in the blink of an eye you have something crazy happen!

How quick a whistle you give in cases like this can have a profound effect on the way the game is played and coached.

In our club in 2010, the officials gave a slow whistle, so I coached techniques to pry the ball loose from opposing ballcarriers, and they worked. Same officials in 2011, but they were giving a quick whistle, so it didn't pay to coach fumble production techniques. Same officials in 2012; whistle this season's still coming faster than in 2010 -- even got an IW after a ball came loose -- but slightly slower than last year. I haven't taught fumble prod'n techniques this year because we've had other priorities.