Fed test question:

[BktBallRef]

There may well be a contradiction.

But if you want to get the question correct, you'd better answer "Safety and 2 points for R."

[Welpe]

I do not believe the fundamental was intended to apply in this situation. This isn't the first time the Fed has done something of this nature. I look at the Fundamentals like rules of thumb, good to follow but you need to have a holistic view of the rules to apply them properly.

Without looking at the fundamentals, it is clear that this is a safety due to the kick being the force that places the ball in K's end zone. If the rules all line up, do not sweat the fundamentals in this case.

[Ref1973]

Originally Posted by Welpe

I do not believe the fundamental was intended to apply in this situation. This isn't the first time the Fed has done something of this nature. I look at the Fundamentals like rules of thumb, good to follow but you need to have a holistic view of the rules to apply them properly.

Without looking at the fundamentals, it is clear that this is a safety due to the kick being the force that places the ball in K's end zone. If the rules all line up, do not sweat the fundamentals in this case.

I agree with everyone that it is a safety without consideration of the fundamental. That is pretty obvious.

However, this is the first time I've ever encountered a contradiction to a fundamental statement. Can anybody cite others?

[bisonlj]

Which fundamental are you concerned about? #3 under Downs? Another example where this isn't absolutely true is if R possesses it (thus touching it), fumbles, and K returns it for a TD. A new series is not given to K.

[Rich]

Personally, I think the fundamentals should be removed from the rule book. They are completely unnecessary to the running of a game and, as we are finding out, aren't necessarily universal.

[ump33]

Table 6-4 (Page 55) is very clear ...

IF THE KICK BECOMES DEAD IN K’S END ZONE

If the force is:
1. The kick or any other new force by K.

Then the ruling is:
1. Safety, if the kick is out of bounds or K has
possession, including when the ball is loose

Since K's kick is what put the ball in the endzone, K better get it out of there.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by ump33

Table 6-4 (Page 55) is very clear ...

IF THE KICK BECOMES DEAD IN K’S END ZONE

If the force is:
1. The kick or any other new force by K.

Then the ruling is:
1. Safety, if the kick is out of bounds or K has
possession, including when the ball is loose

Since K's kick is what put the ball in the endzone, K better get it out of there.

The rules are very clear. I don't think anything else is being argued here.

[bigjohn]

plus casebook play 8.5.1 sit c is word for word on this ruling.