The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 02:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 23
Fed test question:

This is paraphrased:

K1 punts the ball out of his own end zone. R1 muffs the kick in flight beyond the expanded neutral zone. The ball caroms back into K's end zone where K1 jumps on the ball and it is downed there. Ruling?
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 03:05pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ref1973 View Post
This is paraphrased:

K1 punts the ball out of his own end zone. R1 muffs the kick in flight beyond the expanded neutral zone. The ball caroms back into K's end zone where K1 jumps on the ball and it is downed there. Ruling?
What's your guess and why?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 03:15pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 23
Reviewing the rule 8-5-2b makes we want to say safety, however the fundamental statement (Page 80, Section II, No. 3) makes me want to go touchback for K. They seem contradictory.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 03:28pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ref1973 View Post
Reviewing the rule 8-5-2b makes we want to say safety, however the fundamental statement (Page 80, Section II, No. 3) makes me want to go touchback for K. They seem contradictory.
Well... one of your two options is correct.

Read 8.5.1 Situation C
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 03:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1 View Post
Well... one of your two options is correct.

Read 8.5.1 Situation C
Yeah I get that. But haven't we just made a fundamental statement not so fundamental?
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 04:12pm
M.A.S.H.
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Texas
Posts: 5,024
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ref1973 View Post
Yeah I get that. But haven't we just made a fundamental statement not so fundamental?
Which one?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 04:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by tjones1 View Post
Which one?
Page 80 in the rule book. Section II, No. 3
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 07:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 225
Quote:
Originally Posted by ChickenOfNC View Post
Page 80 in the rule book. Section II, No. 3
To elaborate:

Was R first to touch a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone? Check
Was a new series awarded to the team in possession at the end of the down? Oops
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 09:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 236
Here's my take on it...
By all my instincts I would say touchback. However, a key element here is that unless a scrimmage kick has been grounded a "muff" does not add a new force. (2.13.3 pg 28.) Therefore, in this situation, regardless if the kick was first touched by R (muffed in the OP) beyond the NZ no new force is added and therefore it would be a safety.

Example 9-44 2012 Redding study guide page 126

"Punter K10 is standing in his own end zone when he kicks the ball. it crosses the nuetral zone, strikes either R45 or K63 in flight in the helmet and rebounds into the end zone. Ruling. Safety in either case. It doesn't matter which player touched the ball. the initial force is from the punt, and a new force cannot be applied while the ball is in flight."

And then we ask, what if the same kick is recovered by K on their one yard line instead of the EZ? I am thinking since we don't have a ball going into the EZ force is not a factor and then it would be 1/10 for K from their one since R was first to touch punt beyond NZ.

Last edited by whitehat; Tue Aug 20, 2013 at 09:48pm.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 09:57pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 225
I agree with all of that whitehat, but have we not still violated a football fundamental? I dont believe it belongs as a fundamental if there are exceptions to its rule
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 20, 2013, 10:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,613
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."
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2013, 08:52am
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,984
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2013, 08:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,153
plus casebook play 8.5.1 sit c is word for word on this ruling.
__________________
When my time on earth is gone, and my activities here are passed, I want they bury me upside down, and my critics can kiss my azz!
Bobby Knight
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2013, 08:58am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2012
Posts: 23
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 21, 2013, 09:33am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 898
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Best Test Question Ever Scooby Basketball 34 Sat Nov 17, 2012 03:00pm
ASA Test Question 11 (JO FP) NCASAUmp Softball 14 Sun Feb 26, 2012 09:41am
ASA test question RKBUmp Softball 16 Sun Feb 05, 2012 10:14pm
Test Question #40 golfdesigner Basketball 24 Wed Oct 20, 2004 07:47am
test question 25 zac Basketball 21 Mon Oct 11, 2004 03:26pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:51am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1