Punt question

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Does the rulebook use the term "impetus?"

No, the rule book uses the term "force". See CB 8.3.3.A (2012).

im·pe·tus (mp-ts)
n. pl. im·pe·tus·es
1. An impelling force; an impulse.
2. The force or energy associated with a moving body

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

how far away to we consider them to be not responsible for a touch? Two yards? Five yards? Twenty yards? Peace

I'm a believer "one size fits all", only serves to remove judgment and the application of common sense from the decision process. This is a play I'd likely have to see, to make my best effort at reaching the right conclusion. I wouldn't want to give an unfair, unearned advantge to K, nor deprive R of a possession because of an action they were not responsible for.

[grounder]

being blocked into the ball only relieves the blockee of being considered to have touched the ball. any resulting touching is not ignored. even first touching by K can still be applied after the forced blocking. that being said, if first touching by K can still be applied, why wouldnt we apply touching by R?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by grounder

being blocked into the ball only relieves the blockee of being considered to have touched the ball. any resulting touching is not ignored.

Your above assessment, and interpretation, is a valid opinion that would, and should, apply to the vast majority of related circumstances, however it is an opinion and an assessment of what is actually seen applied to your interpretation of NF 6-2-4.

6-2-4, seems to clearly suggest that the "cause" of an action, by a player of one team, should not cause the opponent to suffer a consequence they bear no responsibility for, which is why the judgment of the covering official is dependent on his specific observations.

As this very unique, hypothetical situation is, "not specifically covered in the rules", NF 6-1-6 provides for "authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship on any situation not specifically covered in the rules.", and as always, "The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Your above assessment, and interpretation, is a valid opinion that would, and should, apply to the vast majority of related circumstances, however it is an opinion and an assessment of what is actually seen applied to your interpretation of NF 6-2-4.

6-2-4, seems to clearly suggest that the "cause" of an action, by a player of one team, should not cause the opponent to suffer a consequence they bear no responsibility for, which is why the judgment of the covering official is dependent on his specific observations.

Seems to? I think that is your interpretation based on you are just about the only person making the leap that touching the ball based on this definition leads to other touching to be apart of that same definition. Sorry, but that is a big leap when in other cases there are interpretations that suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by ajmc

As this very unique, hypothetical situation is, "not specifically covered in the rules", NF 6-1-6 provides for "authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship on any situation not specifically covered in the rules.", and as always, "The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."

Well that is great, but the Referee is not making these decisions in the first place. And if I rule this as a Back Judge my Referee better not have much idea what actually happened or see the play at all. So not sure what this reference has to do with this issue?

Peace

[grounder]

Your above assessment, and interpretation, is a valid opinion that would, and should, apply to the vast majority of related circumstances, however it is an opinion and an assessment of what is actually seen applied to your interpretation of NF 6-2-4.


this isnt an opinion..its the rule

[Robert Goodman]

I'm trying to imagine a situation in which K1's contact with R1 causes the ball to bounce off R1 so differently from the way it might've bounced off the ground as to put R2 at a disadvantage. If R2 wants to avoid contact with the ball, the distance and direction R2 goes in, if it isn't sufficient to avoid a deflection off R1, isn't sufficient, period.

Why is R1 in position to be contacted by K1? Really only a couple of reasons. R1 could be blocking to set up a runback, or to prevent K1 from downing the ball close to R's goal line. In the second case, other players of R would treat the ball as poison because they want the ball to bounce over their goal line. In the first case, other players of R might decide the ball was poison or might still be trying to run it back. If they were trying to gain possession of the ball, they're taking their chance on a deflection regardless of whether R1 or K1 is nearby. If they were trying to get away from the ball, the consideration in the 1st para. is in effect.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by grounder

this isnt an opinion..its the rule

Unless I missed something, grounder, the rule does NOT address this very specific, very hypothetical sample play. My opinion is based on my interpretation of the intent of the rule, you are referring to, as well as my understanding of the intent and purpose of this rule, which I've previously stated. As I tried to suggest, there are a series of "if's" included in the assessment I suggested that apply, to this particular and unique play.

If you don't agree with my assessment, that's fine. As always you should follow your own thoughtful assessment based on what you've actually seen and what you understand is the intent and/or purpose of the rule. You might keep in mind, that an overarching function of our role is when very specific corcumstances are NOT covered by the wording of a rule, our objective as stated in 1-1-6 is to, "rule promptly , and in the spirit of good sportsmanship" to avoid either team gaining, or suffering, from an unearned advantage.

Mr. Rutledge, I specified "the Referee" in my reference to NF 1-1-6 because that's exactly what "the rule" states. I would expect any Referee I was working with to accept my judgment unless, and until, he has sound and persuasive reason to convince me my judgment was in err. However, as the rule specifically states "the Referee" I would consider it my responsibility to explain, and if necessary persuade, the Referee to concur with my judgment.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Unless I missed something, grounder, the rule does NOT address this very specific, very hypothetical sample play. My opinion is based on my interpretation of the intent of the rule, you are referring to, as well as my understanding of the intent and purpose of this rule, which I've previously stated. As I tried to suggest, there are a series of "if's" included in the assessment I suggested that apply, to this particular and unique play.

Every rule is not going to cover every single situation or scenario. There is no situation that even suggests in any interpretation what you are saying. You are taking it further than even the rules or interpretation allows.

Originally Posted by ajmc

Mr. Rutledge, I specified "the Referee" in my reference to NF 1-1-6 because that's exactly what "the rule" states. I would expect any Referee I was working with to accept my judgment unless, and until, he has sound and persuasive reason to convince me my judgment was in err. However, as the rule specifically states "the Referee" I would consider it my responsibility to explain, and if necessary persuade, the Referee to concur with my judgment.

You are still taking about a rules dispute where on the field this would not apply to that rule. A Referee would rarely if ever be judging any first touching or any of these kinds of plays. So not sure where the Referee is going to be making any decision as it relates to this rule. The wings, back judge and even the umpire have potential much more to be involved then a Referee that is furthest from the play. I do not know how the Referee is even going to be able to give any information related to this play and say if or when a ball is touched, let alone if it is forced touching or not. The Referee cannot also overrule anyone's judgment. That rule is to cover a situation that is brought to their attention and likely needs administrative action. Like what is player might be allowed to wear or what might take place to start a contest with an interruptions. Rules do not cover all possible scenarios in those areas, that is likely where this rule will come into play, not some situation in which you are trying to define something that is already defined.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

eace

There is no situation that even suggests in any interpretation what you are saying. You are taking it further than even the rules or interpretation allows.

Forgive me, I thought this was a hypothetical question leading to a discussion, I never got a copy of the memo appointing you Grand Pupa in charge of deciding, "how far the rules, or interpretations, are allowed to go. If you have reasoning beyond, "Because you said so", please share it, I'd like to consider it.

A Referee would rarely if ever be judging any first touching or any of these kinds of plays. So not sure where the Referee is going to be making any decision as it relates to this rule.

I never intended to suggest the Referee would be asked about his version of what actually happened, likely being far removed from the downfield action, but some Referees expect to be kept abreast of exceptional calls in the event there might be questions, and might even provide useful advice.

The Referee cannot also overrule anyone's judgment.

Strange, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Referee was prevented from reviewing judgment calls. Although it's certainly not an every day matter, I thought the second sentence of 1-1-6, "The Referee's decisions are final in ALL MATTERS pertaining to the game", actually meant "ALL MATTERS", and a quality Referee might be able to add some valuable input to the discussion that would persuade the covering official to rethink the original call.

not some situation in which you are trying to define something that is already defined.

I thought the fact that this particular scenario is NOT defined, is what raises it as a question, intended to open a iscussion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There is no situation that even suggests in any interpretation what you are saying. You are taking it further than even the rules or interpretation allows.

Forgive me, I thought this was a hypothetical question leading to a discussion, I never got a copy of the memo appointing you Grand Pupa in charge of deciding, "how far the rules, or interpretations, are allowed to go. If you have reasoning beyond, "Because you said so", please share it, I'd like to consider it.

You can do what you want, but you are alone in this interpretation here. And I have never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting. And I am a person that has for years been a back judge or deep wing and never heard anyone suggest the rule applies the way you are doing here. I would think at some point someone other than you would make this argument, but they have not.

Originally Posted by ajmc

A Referee would rarely if ever be judging any first touching or any of these kinds of plays. So not sure where the Referee is going to be making any decision as it relates to this rule.

I never intended to suggest the Referee would be asked about his version of what actually happened, likely being far removed from the downfield action, but some Referees expect to be kept abreast of exceptional calls in the event there might be questions, and might even provide useful advice.

Just stating the ruling would long be made before they got involved. This would be a tape review issue or a discussion in the locker room, but not where this rule would likely be involked.

Originally Posted by ajmc

The Referee cannot also overrule anyone's judgment.

Strange, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Referee was prevented from reviewing judgment calls. Although it's certainly not an every day matter, I thought the second sentence of 1-1-6, "The Referee's decisions are final in ALL MATTERS pertaining to the game", actually meant "ALL MATTERS", and a quality Referee might be able to add some valuable input to the discussion that would persuade the covering official to rethink the original call.

But this is a judgment call, just based on your explaination of "your" interpretation. You never explained how far we take a touch to subsequent touches (which there is no rules support for). So wouldn't this situation be based on judgment? Not sure where the actual rule would come into play even with the definition that is stated. I would think you would have to rule when a touch is "forced" or not forced.

Originally Posted by ajmc

not some situation in which you are trying to define something that is already defined.

I thought the fact that this particular scenario is NOT defined, is what raises it as a question, intended to open a iscussion.

I do not think this is as unclear as you stated. You just are looking for specifics for a hypothtical that the rule was not intended for IMO. And it appears no one else but you are having this issue. And I did discuss this with others to see if I was crazy or missing something and have yet anyone to suggest your interpretation applies to the actual rule or intent of the rule.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You can do what you want, but you are alone in this interpretation here. And I have never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting.

You never explained how far we take a touch to subsequent touches (which there is no rules support for). So wouldn't this situation be based on judgment? Not sure where the actual rule would come into play even with the definition that is stated. I

I do not think this is as unclear as you stated. You just are looking for specifics for a hypothtical that the rule was not intended for IMO. And it appears no one else but you are having this issue. Peace

This was a "sample question" about something I don't know that ever has happened, anywhere and certainly never to me. Why then, would you be surprised, "never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting", it's likely it never happened anywhere to anyone.

Yes, I am looking for specifics, regarding the logic and intent of the written rule, we all can refer to, but agree doesn't extend to, relate to or explain, this situation.

Why should I care that, "no one else but you are having this issue"? I don't have an issue, I'm suggesting a consideration for a previously unasked/unanswered question. If you disagree with my suggestion, fine, I've got no argument with that, but if you're trying to persuade me, you need to provide a little more than, "because I said so".

I know it's not stated in the rule, I know the verbiage used only applies to that initial forced contact, but does it make sense that a secondary contact, which as described, sounds as entirely the responsibility of K as the initial forced contact, should be ignored? If so, why?

Does the fact that, it sounds, like the 2nd contact by R, was caused ENTIRELY by K, extend the logic of the rule that R is not, nor should be, held responsible for an action caused ENTIRELY by K, which is exactly the logic applied to relieving R of the responsibility of the initial contact.

If you don't think that logic extends, OK, but why. It seems to me it's reasonable that it should, but as I've stated I would have to see exactly what happened to be absolutely sure that R2 had absolutely nothing to do with him touching, or being touched by, the deflected ball.

If R2 was standing close to the collision by K1 and R1 which caused the ball to be deflected into R2, as opposed to being some distance away, the opportunity, or lack thereof, to avoid touching the ball would be a factor.

How far away? I don't know, it first needs to be established if that matters. Should it?

If you don't want to bother questioning the logic and purpose behind this rule, fine, don't bother with it and go with the language that exists.

This is not a "look up the answer" situation, because an answer doesn't exist, and there is no official right or wrong. It seems a lot more like an opportunity to discuss the intent and purpose of the rule and see where that discussion might lead.

[JRutledge]

ajmc,

Do whatever your local association, crew or area allows.

If you are looking for answers, you have been given them by many here. If you do not want to accept them and think there is something more, then use that logic that works for you. No one here is really likely to work with you or have much to say over what games you get or do not get. Same applies to me if I have an interpretation or philosophy.

Do what you see fit. Not much reason to keep debating what is clearly there in my mind. If it is not in your mind, then do what you need to do. I just think that is not the intent of the rule and will not rule accordingly.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

ajmc,

Do whatever your local association, crew or area allows.

No one here is really likely to work with you or have much to say over what games you get or do not get.

Standard Rut answer.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Standard Rut answer.

Yes it is. That is what everyone should do and not necessarily listen to anyone here if they choose not to agree with them.

Last time I checked no one here hires others on this board as a general statement. So do what works in your local area as those are the people that will praise you or admonish you for your choices.

Peace