Recent Posts

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10
1
FWIW, the result of the play in Ralph's quiz is a safety in both cases in NCAA, too. Team A is responsible for the ball being dead behind their own goal line (blocking and muffing do not add new impetus - or force, in NF terms, I guess).
2
NCAA Discussion / Re: Play 6 - 2017 Video Review 3
« Last post by Kalle on Today at 01:26:54 AM »
2-30-4-a should clarify this. In this play situation there are two running plays during the return. One is the run by B86, which ends at B-15 (and includes the action until the start of the second run), and the other is the run which starts and ends at B-1.

In A.R. 2-30-4-II the penalty statement reads: the penalty is added to the end of the last run (not the related run, as in 3-1 enforcement). There used to be valid arguments against the action by A24 not being a separate run(ning play), which is why the A.R. was added. Technically even the snap is a separate run, but this rarely comes into play.
3
NCAA Discussion / Re: Play 6 - 2017 Video Review 3
« Last post by DallasLJ on Today at 01:12:20 AM »
Elvis
  Having a hard time find "end of the related run."  I get 2-25-8 says the "run" ends where player possession is lost on a fumble.  And, yes the run includes the run and loose ball play before possession, but that does not answer the 3 in 1 principle question of when the related run ends.  I was all set to go with the definition of 2-25-8 on where the run ends, but then AR 2-30-4-II gives the enforcement stop of where the fumble was recovered -- even though it was in advance of the fumble.  Thus, the recovery spot is where the related run ends --- not the spot of the fumble.

  So, back to the A&M game -- and there was not batting called, so only penalty called is Holding by return team at the 15 during a run --- and the run had a fumble at the 15 -- which was recovered at the 1 yard line -- behind the "end of the run."  Receiving team is now going to put the ball in play at the 1.  Enforcement of penalty is 1/2 the distance from this "end of the related run spot".   Otherwise, the foul by A&M would simply have been declined and the result of the play accepted. 

  Thoughts?  Rule references please.
4
Texas Topics / Re: 1204 Changes, UIL Vote Oct 15/16
« Last post by hefnerjm on Yesterday at 08:56:00 PM »
Let me ask this to make sure i understand:

Under the new 1204 (if it passes) my crew has a game that is 121-150 miles from my location (chapter center I assume).

The gross gate receipts fall into the $150 - $4000 range. 

That means that each of the 5 of us would receive $155.  Correct?

Thanks,

This is how I read the chart...however, it is an important question to be answered.  This would eliminate all the variability for schools as to whether you have 1, 2, or 3 cars driving.  And it sounds like it would put it in the hands of a given crew as to how to compensate whichever official decides to drive 149 miles. 

Up in Michigan it wasnt uncommon to have each crew member pay the driver $10 bucks or something. 
5
National Federation Discussion / Re: Live ball equipment violation
« Last post by js in sc on Yesterday at 07:15:48 PM »
Any pushback from the coach who wants to know where that interpretation is in the rule book? Itís one thing if itís supported as a state-wide initiative. Itís something else if itís not.
We explain that it is improper equipment and rather than hit him with a 15 yard UC, we will send them out.  They are grateful.  Have not had any problems.
6
NCAA Discussion / Re: Play 6 - 2017 Video Review 3
« Last post by ElvisLives on Yesterday at 05:38:35 PM »
The related run ended at the 1 yard line when the Receiving Team fell on the ball.  The related run for fumbles that go behind the spot of the fumble are the point of recovery, not the sport of the fumble, correct? 

Cowtown,
A "running play" includes the interval while the ball is loose from a fumble, backward pass, or illegal forward pass (2-30-4).  So, all fouls that occur during the loose ball are related to the end of the run for that related running play.  In this case, the ball was fumbled about the B-15, so the end of the related run is the B-15.

The holding foul AND the batting foul both occurred during the same running play, so the enforcement spot for both would be the end of the related run, which is the B-15.  Of course, with the 'clean hands' situation, either both penalties would ultimately be declined, or a smart receiving team would just elect offsetting fouls to repeat the kickoff.

Regarding the possibility of the kicking team player attempting to swipe or scoop the ball towards himself, wow, I just don't see that.  He didn't bat it backward - he batted it forward, which is why it was illegal.  He batted it forward to 1) gain yardage, 2) to prevent the opponents from recovering it, and 3) to allow a teammate to have a better chance of recovering it (which is why the rule exists).  I see absolutely no attempt to gain possession of the ball.  As Redding concluded, this is illegal batting, clear and simple.

Not a really big deal, as it turned out, because of the holding foul by the receiving team.  But, I just wonder if A&M was advised with regard to electing offsetting fouls, or just exactly what. 

Fresno State once elected offsetting fouls in a similar situation, instead of keeping the ball around the B-15.  On the re-kick, they got tackled at the B-10.  Go figure.

Robert
7
General Discussion / Re: After further review by the replay official.......
« Last post by LJ Silver on Yesterday at 05:28:42 PM »
NFL rule regarding the pylon is different than NCAA/NFHS.  Touching the pylon in NFL does not make a player out of bounds. Only a loose ball touching the pylon is out of bounds.
8
NCAA Discussion / Re: Play 6 - 2017 Video Review 3
« Last post by Cowtown Ref on Yesterday at 04:54:37 PM »
Dallas LJ you are correct.

Yeah I was still distracted with the questionable batting call that I dont agree with.

But yes the foul would be marked off from the end of the run in that situation.  So the 1 is the correct spot.

If it had been marked off from the spot of the foul, the offending team would have actually benefited from the foul.
9
National Federation Discussion / Re: Live ball equipment violation
« Last post by Rulesman on Yesterday at 04:51:56 PM »
I agree.  Although it is not a statewide initiative, some of the crews I have been on this year in SC are doing the same thing.  Not only does it get the players' attention, it really targets the coaches who are getting more involved.  We tell them before the game, if they are improperly equipped, we are going to send them out for a play.  Nothing works better than sending the star player to the sideline in a critical point in the game.  He won't do it again.
Any pushback from the coach who wants to know where that interpretation is in the rule book? Itís one thing if itís supported as a state-wide initiative. Itís something else if itís not.
10
NCAA Discussion / Re: Play 6 - 2017 Video Review 3
« Last post by DallasLJ on Yesterday at 04:46:25 PM »
Elvis

  Why do you think the 1/2 the distance penalty enforcement would place the ball at the B 7 1/2.  The foul occurred during the run.  The related run ended at the 1 yard line when the Receiving Team fell on the ball.  The related run for fumbles that go behind the spot of the fumble are the point of recovery, not the sport of the fumble, correct?  Under 3 in 1 principle, when the related run ends behind the spot of the foul, the enforcement spot is the end of the related run.  1/2 the distance from the B-1.  Or am I missing something . . . . which is always possible.

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 ... 10