Forward Progress after COP

[Suudy]

Watching a game this weekend of an interception in the EZ, I had a thought about forward progress.

1st and 10 from the B 20. A throws into the EZ and B20 intercepts the ball 2 yards deep in the EZ. A5 hits B20 and drives him into the field of play where B20 is tackled on the B2.

1st and 10 from the 2? Or a touchback and 1st and 10 from the 20?

I think this because of the case where B intercepts and tries to go down (to get the touchback). But A drives B onto the field of play to intentionally prevent the touchback. You can't call B's forward progress stopped (since he's obviously going forward). But do you allow A to prevent the touchback?

[JRutledge]

Where was the forward progress stopped? It sounds like the 2 yard line without seeing the play for myself. But if a defender throws them forward, then you put them at the 2 yard line. This is no different then any other part of the field, unless you feel the forward progress was stopped and then the action was a secondary act.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

First down on the 2. Nothing to think about here.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

First down on the 2. Nothing to think about here.

+1000

Peace

[Suudy]

Well, in the former sit, I don't think there is any further thinking. Rather, I was more interested in the latter situation.

What if B makes an effort to down himself in the EZ, but A lifts/drives B into the field of play?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Well, in the former sit, I don't think there is any further thinking. Rather, I was more interested in the latter situation.

What if B makes an effort to down himself in the EZ, but A lifts/drives B into the field of play?

I think you are over thinking this. I have yet to see a situation where a defender launches someone forward while a ball carrier is truly going down. This is why you get paid the big bucks to decide when or if forward progress has been stopped. But if a player is trying to go down or cannot until his forward progress is stopped outside the end zone, he needs to learn how to do that better.

Peace

[Suudy]

Just to be clear, I'm not discussing any actual situation I've seen or heard about. This is just a hypothetical for purposes of rule discussion.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think you are over thinking this. I have yet to see a situation where a defender launches someone forward while a ball carrier is truly going down.

I haven't seen this either. Just a hypothetical that got me wondering.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

This is why you get paid the big bucks to decide when or if forward progress has been stopped.

But that's the point. Forward progress hasn't been stopped if A is driving B back into the field of play. Indeed, A is driving B forward.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

But if a player is trying to go down or cannot until his forward progress is stopped outside the end zone, he needs to learn how to do that better.

Fair enough. There's no rule prohibiting an opponent from driving the ball carrier forward. And normally that would be desirable.

Or perhaps a similar case. With less than a minute remaining in the game, A is trying to go down in bounds. B lifts/drives A forward and out of bounds.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Suudy

Well, in the former sit, I don't think there is any further thinking. Rather, I was more interested in the latter situation.

What if B makes an effort to down himself in the EZ, but A lifts/drives B into the field of play?

I understood your question...

The answer, still... is First down on the 2. Nothing to think about here.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Suudy

But that's the point. Forward progress hasn't been stopped if A is driving B back into the field of play. Indeed, A is driving B forward.

You've answered your own question.

Or perhaps a similar case. With less than a minute remaining in the game, A is trying to go down in bounds. B lifts/drives A forward and out of bounds.

Ditto.

You seem hung up on the fact that A is trying to go down and B's trying to prevent it. This game is filled with instances of one player or team trying to do something and the other team or player trying to prevent it. You don't give one or the other a break or the benefit of what their intent was - you rule on what happened. There should be no inclination on your part to help out A, who was attempting to do something perhaps not normal, when he was prevented from doing so by B, who was similarly trying to do something otherwise not normal (push a player forward).

Simply rule on what happens. Don't make it difficult.

[MD Longhorn]

(And ... for the record ... I've seen a player stop suddenly to try to not score, only to be pushed into the endzone by the defense who wanted him to score (so they could get the ball back).)

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

You seem hung up on the fact that A is trying to go down and B's trying to prevent it. This game is filled with instances of one player or team trying to do something and the other team or player trying to prevent it.

Ah. Good point. I hadn't considered this just another case of "trying to do something and ... trying to prevent it." I had thoughts of holding or something in mind.

Thanks for the response.

[JRutledge]

MD stated this the best.

Peace