On a try

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by goldsmi

The FED makes a distinction between 'spotting the ball' and RFP as evidenced in these unrelated Casebook cites:

*7.5.2 SITUATION G: In the last few seconds of a half, A1 completes a pass to
A2 at B’s 20-yard line. The ball is properly spotted and the referee marks it ready
for play and signals the clock to start. In the rush and confusion to stop the clock,
A’s snapper and quarterback A1 are the only A players in legal position when the
ball is snapped and legally “spiked” by A1. A foul for illegal formation occurs at
the snap.


10.1.1 SITUATION A: Where is the ball spotted following penalty acceptance
when it is snapped from the right-side hash mark and the run ends in the left-side
zone and the foul is: (a) illegal motion by A1; or (b) holding by A1 in the middle
of the field behind the end of the run; or (c) grasping the face mask/helmet opening
by B1 in making the tackle? RULING: In (a), it is spotted at the right-side hash
mark. In (b), it is spotted in the middle of the field since the enforcement spot was
the spot of the foul. In (c), it is spotted at the left hash mark.

It is reasonable to interpret that spotting the ball takes place prior to the RFP and is a separate activity.

Obviously it must take place before the RFP and is a separate activity, but the cases given above don't speak to the case being discussed here.

What makes anyone believe that whoever wrote "spotted" in Casebook reference 4.3.6 actually meant that, rather than its meaning "readied"?

"Do you want the ball here?" [Puts ball on ground.]
"No, there."
"Too late, it's spotted."

[goldsmi]

The UNRELATED Casebook references serve to support the interpretation that spotting the ball and the RFP are two distinct acts.

What makes anyone believe that whoever wrote "spotted" in Casebook reference 4.3.6 was referring to anything other that?

Don't you think that if the FED MEANT 'readied', they would specified 'readied' or RFP rather than spotted?

[Altor]

Fed case books are notorious for implying incorrect things in their rulings. When they write those cases, they are typically trying to teach 1 concept and don't realize what they are implying in other parts of the case. Don't go looking for secondary rulings in Fed cases unless they are specifically stated in that case.

[JKinGA29]

My point is that the case book only refers to a case where the team has already made a request, hence the sentence "...once spotted the ball
may not be moved because of a second request." The point of the case is that once the team picks a place, they're stuck with that place unless there is a dead-ball foul or replay of the down. I don't see any case book plays where the team's first request regarding the ball is denied just because the ball has already been placed placed/spotted.

If the RFP hasn't been blown and the team hasn't yet made a request, I have no reason not to honor their request and move the ball. However once they pick a spot, or the RFP is blown, they're playing the ball where it lies unless there is a dead-ball foul or replay of the down.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JKinGA29

If the RFP hasn't been blown and the team hasn't yet made a request, I have no reason not to honor their request and move the ball. However once they pick a spot, or the RFP is blown, they're playing the ball where it lies unless there is a dead-ball foul or replay of the down.

Makes perfect sense. I always delay my RPF on the try until the offense gets into the huddle or comes to the line.

[Ia-Ref]

Originally Posted by JKinGA29

If the RFP hasn't been blown and the team hasn't yet made a request, I have no reason not to honor their request and move the ball. However once they pick a spot, or the RFP is blown, they're playing the ball where it lies unless there is a dead-ball foul or replay of the down.

Exactly!