Progress Stopped, or Play On?

[mtn335]

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!

[Welpe]

I have progress stopped.

[MD Longhorn]

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?

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

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 would.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

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.

[maven]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I have progress stopped.

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?

[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

[mtn335]

Thanks, all, for your feedback!

Originally Posted by maven

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

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.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I have progress stopped.

Me too.

[JRutledge]

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