RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Classics => Topic started by: TXMike on May 26, 2011, 07:30:11 AM
-
Maybe we should have a thread dedicated to things we find in the new book that are "hidden" changes as they are not listed in either the rule change section or editorial change section?
Example:
9-1-16-a-5 Now, even if a player is LEGALLY blocked into the kicker, roughing or running into CANNOT be called.
(EDITED TO CORRECT A DYSLEXIC MOMENT)
If we deem the block caused the defender to to hit the kicker, it does not matter if it was legal or illegal, no foul for running into or roughing.
-
9-1-16-a-5 Now, even if a player is LEGALLY blocked into the kicker, roughing or running into CAN be called.
How is this new? This was 9-1-4-a-6 in the old book.
Something I thought was interesting was redefining the passer to include someone who throws an illegal forward pass (2-27-5 removes the requirement that the pass is legal). This means that now you can have intentional grounding and roughing the passer on the same play.
-
I think 9 1 4 a only excused the defender who was ILLEGALLY blocked into kicker
-
Maybe we should have a thread dedicated to things we find in the new book that are "hidden" changes as they are not listed in either the rule change section or editorial change section?
Example:
9-1-16-a-5 Now, even if a player is LEGALLY blocked into the kicker, roughing or running into CAN be called.
You should change CAN to CANNOT. I didn't read the new section until after I made the previous post. Now I agree that this is a hidden change.
-
New 9.1.16.a.5
When a defensive player’s contact against the kicker or holder is caused by an opponent’s block (legal or illegal), there is no foul for running into or roughing.
Old 9.1.4.a.6
A defensive player legally blocked into the kicker or holder by a member of the kicking team is not exempt from fouls for running into or roughing the kicker or holder. A defensive player illegally blocked into the kicker or holder by a member of the kicking team is exempt from fouls for running into or roughing the kicker or holder.
-
I like that change. I always hated that I had to remember the difference between RTP and RTK.
-
This is a HUGE change in philosophy of how the game is to be played - not just an 'editorial' change. Not exonerating a B rusher even when blocked by Team A was a VERY conscious decision by the rulesmakers several decades ago. For it to be changed 'editorially' seems a bit trivializing, when, if fact, this is a HUGE change.
-
[Exception: If the passer is or has been outside the tackle box he may throw the ball so that it crosses or lands beyond the neutral zone or neutral zone extended
(Rule 2-19-3) (A.R. 7-3-2-VIII). This applies only to the player who receives the snap
Is this a new one too?
-
Yep. Another snuck in there. Although I don't think I have ever seen a player who did not get the original snap throw a pass that might or might not have been grounding. Seems like a very, very rare possibility but at least now it is covered.
-
Definition for back changed to "break waistline of nearest lineman" as opposed to "rearmost part
other than legs" 2-27-4-d
Definition of goal line now includes pylon (2-12-2) and goal line not extended for airborne player. 4-2-4
-
Take a look at the new organization of 7-1-3. To me, the new aspect is that Team A players not conforming to the 9-yard requirements is a dead-ball foul - blow and throw at the snap. Just like the former illegal participation.
-
That is what it looks like. This is starting to get a bit much. By allowing the ball to be snapped but then shutting it down, we are in effect possibly preventing the defense from making a big play which they would accept over the relatively minor penalty for the minor infraction. Why stop with just the ones we have so far? Why not shut it down at the snap when Team A has a player illegally in motion? Or Team A has a formation problem?
-
Probably more clarification of a known given, rather then meaningful change:
It is now legal to clip and block below the waist against a runner - see 9-1-5-Exception 5 and 9-1-6-Exception 1, respectively. In previous years, it was the "ball carrier".
-
Rule 9
Contacting an Official
ARTICLE 4. Persons subject to the rules shall not intentionally contact a game official forcibly during the game
It used to read...
ARTICLE 4. Intentionally contacting a game official physically during the game by persons subject to the rules is a foul.
-
What is forcibly? Anything I want it to be. But, haven't had to use that rule in 38 years. Here's to hoping I never have to use it.
Rule 9
Contacting an Official
ARTICLE 4. Persons subject to the rules shall not intentionally contact a game official forcibly during the game
It used to read...
ARTICLE 4. Intentionally contacting a game official physically during the game by persons subject to the rules is a foul.
-
Use of Hands or Arms by Defense
ARTICLE 4. a. Defensive players may use hands and arms to push, pull, ward
off or lift offensive players when attempting to reach the runner.
b. Defensive players may not use hands and arms to tackle, hold or otherwise
illegally obstruct an opponent other than a runner.
Oh yeah. He finally fixed this one. Used to say "ball carrier." One of those that got inadvertently changed in 2009 by the global "find & replace" command, when he introduced the term "ball carrier."
-
Unintended hidden change, I suspect.
2009-10 9-1-2-e-3:
3. During a scrimmage down, defensive players are prohibited from
blocking an eligible Team A receiver below the waist beyond the
neutral zone unless attempting to get at the ball or ball carrier. A
Team A receiver remains eligible until a legal forward pass is no
longer possible by rule.
2011 9-1-6-c:
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking
zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area
until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b) except against a
Team A player in position to receive a backward pass.
No mention of a prohibition of BBW against eligible receivers in the blocking zone extended to the sideline. Granted, the blocking zone is going to disintegrate fairly quickly, in most cases. And BBW is prohibited beyond the blocking zone. But, I can easily see a QB taking a hand-to-hand snap, raising to throw to a wing back just beyond the NZ, but the wingback has been cut to the ground by a LB. This has been illegal for probably 30 years. (32, to be exact - introduced in 1979) By the wording here, now legal. I don't think this is intended. The idea of returning to a time (like when I was in HS) when a DB could cut the receiver at the line, and take him out of the pass pattern is a step back to the stone ages, relatively speaking.
First one to get an audience with RR, please see what he says about this.
-
4.1.3.b
b. When any part of the ball carrier’s body, except his hand or foot, touches the ground or when the ball carrier is tackled or otherwise falls and loses possession of the ball as he contacts the ground with any part of his body, except his hand or foot [Exception: The ball remains alive when an offensive player has simulated a kick or at the snap is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or advanced by rule] (A.R. 4-1-3-I)
This would seem to verify that the LSU type fake field goal would now be legal and would negate the idea that the holder would have to keep his knee off the ground or something else that had been dreamed up because at the time of the pass, the K was no longer in a position to kick the ball.
-
4.1.3.b
This would seem to verify that the LSU type fake field goal would now be legal and would negate the idea that the holder would have to keep his knee off the ground or something else that had been dreamed up because at the time of the pass, the K was no longer in a position to kick the ball.
And, by this 'editorial' change (but actually a rule change), it doesn't matter what the potential kicker does after the snap, i.e., runs away from the apparent holder; toward, the apparent holder; backward; or forward. A much simpler rule to officiate.
-
By the wording here, now legal.
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding either you or the situation, but how could it be legal when BBW is now illegal except where it is expressly allowed?
-
Perhaps I'm misunderstanding either you or the situation, but how could it be legal when BBW is now illegal except where it is expressly allowed?
You must be misunderstanding the 2011 rule. B players in the blocking zone (extended to the sideline) at the snap are permitted to BBW in the blocking zone (except against a player in position to receive a backward pass). Picture this: CB B22 is in a 'press' position on split end A88 at the snap. A88 attempts to escape around B22 to run downfield, but B22 blocks him at the shins while both are still in the blocking zone (extended to the sideline), causing A88 to fall to the ground. QB A11 took the hand-to-hand snap, raised up looking for A88, but is unable to attempt a pass to A88, because A88 has been blocked to the ground.
Illegal in 2010, for certain. By current 2011 language, not prohibited (perhaps by inadvertent omission, but that's how it reads today).
-
2011 - 1.4.9 (used to be 1.4.7)
Coaches' Certification
The head coach or his designated representative shall certify IN WRITING to the umpire before the game that all players:....
Probably a small one in what seems to be a growing "grand scheme" of hidden changes, but how exactly will this legal transaction take place? Will we need to provide a "receipt"? How about being notarized? Kidding aside, while I understand the goal here, I wonder if they have any guidance on this. Do we provide something for them to sign during our pregame meeting, do they give us a signed document... ???
-
must be covered although they recommend they should be covered by pants ?
Mandatory Equipment
d. Knee Pads. Knee pads must be at least 1/2-inch thick and must be covered
by pants. It is strongly recommended that they cover the knees. No pads or
protective equipment may be worn outside the pants.
-
Just saying knee pads must be worn and must be covered by pants and recommending the knee pads cover the knees.
-
In the Points of Emphasis:
"HELMETS—The helmet is intended to protect the player from head injuries. It must therefore be fitted properly so that it does not come off through play. Coaches and trainers must be diligent in seeing that players wear the helmets properly, and officials must firmly enforce the rules requiring chin straps to be tightly secured. The rules committee gave serious consideration to creating a rule requiring a player whose helmet comes off during play to leave the game for one down."
I suspect we are being encouraged to enforce 2011-12, passage 1-4-4-a-1, "The helmet must be fitted with a facemask and a secured four- or six-point chin strap, all points of which must be secured whenever the ball is in play."
Which is different from the analogous passage 1-4-4-b in the 2009-10 rule book, "Helmet. A helmet with a face mask and a secured four- or six-point chin strap. If a chin strap is not secured, it is a violation. Officials should inform players when all snaps are not secured without charging a timeout unless the player ignores the warning."
Note, "Officials should inform players when all snaps are not secured without charging a timeout unless the player ignores the warning." has been removed from the rule this year. Does that mean, we are to charge a team a TO (violation of mandatory equipment) if one of its players does not comply with 1-4-4-a-1? Alternatively, are we going down Mouthpiece Lane?
-
Coaches' Certification
The head coach or his designated representative shall certify IN WRITING to the umpire before the game that all players:....
Probably a small one in what seems to be a growing "grand scheme" of hidden changes, but how exactly will this legal transaction take place? Will we need to provide a "receipt"? How about being notarized? Kidding aside, while I understand the goal here, I wonder if they have any guidance on this. Do we provide something for them to sign during our pregame meeting, do they give us a signed document... ???
We already use a pre-printed game card that has space on the back for the Coaches' Certification which is already done with the R & the U together during the pregame discussion with the HC. I'm thinking we'll just have the HC sign it instead of the U initialing it?
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
We already use a pre-printed game card that has space on the back for the Coaches' Certification which is already done with the R & the U together during the pregame discussion with the HC. I'm thinking we'll just have the HC sign it instead of the U initialing it?
That would work.
But, if they really want the HC to provide written certification, the NCAA should develop a common form that they provide the coaches, which they can sign and hand to the U during the pre-game meeting, or at least provide the forms to officials so they can have the coaches sign the forms during the pre-game meetings. I'm just thinking of the additional time and annoyance to the coaches of having to sign something each week. Especially if what they see looks dramatically different each week. They danged sure will not be happy about having to read something different each week. So, if they have a form they've been able to look at before the season, and they know what it says, then at least they won't have any reason to be suspicious about what they are signing. It just strikes me as being so much less of an issue if, when the R & U first see the HC, the coach just hands them his signed form and they move right along. Or, at worst, the U hands the coach the same form he (the coach) has seen every week, he signs quickly, and they move right along. Kinda like the 1099s we get from some schools. I know what it is - I don't need to read it. Just sign the damned thing and move along.
This may seem like an annoyance to us, but, some day, some place, somebody is going to get injured, and they will try to hang it on the game officials (in court). This will be necessary to help exonerate officials, or, at least mitigate their liability.
-
Take a look at the new organization of 7-1-3. To me, the new aspect is that Team A players not conforming to the 9-yard requirements is a dead-ball foul - blow and throw at the snap. Just like the former illegal participation.
My hunch is this is in there so we could now enforce the 10 second runoff for this penalty if it happened in the last minute...ie A runs a play, clock is running, WR that ran an out route gets back to his position on LOS before snap...but doesn't get in the 9 yards before A runs a "kill the clock" play. btw, I am not recomending throwing a flat in that situation!
-
My hunch is this is in there so we could now enforce the 10 second runoff for this penalty if it happened in the last minute...ie A runs a play, clock is running, WR that ran an out route gets back to his position on LOS before snap...but doesn't get in the 9 yards before A runs a "kill the clock" play. btw, I am not recomending throwing a flat in that situation!
Also in 7.1.3: "c. Encroachment. Once the snapper is established no other Team A player may be in or beyond the neutral zone.... ". If snapper assumes his position over the ball to "get ready" for the kill-the-clock play, and the WR who is rushing back from deep downfield crosses the NZ back to his side of the ball just after the snapper touches the ball we've got a B&T DB foul?
-
You would not flag in that situation would you? I doubt that is the intent of the rule.
-
You would not flag in that situation would you? I doubt that is the intent of the rule.
Well what is the intent of the wording " ..... no other Team A player may be in or beyond the neutral zone". There's 2 exceptions specifically listed and the downfield WR returning isn't included. I read it as saying that the snapper has to wait until all 10 of his "player" teammates are on his side of the ball before he gets ready to snap (touches the ball). Wide receivers returning from downfield are pretty common in a hurry-up and they are conspicuously absent in the exception list. How would you read the intent here?
-
This part of the rule is not a change. It was this way before but I don't know many guys who would have flagged and shut it down before this year so I don't see the need to do so this year.
If there are exceptions for subs and departing players, it seems fair to permit the same leeway for a player returning to his side of the line of scrimmage.
I suspect the intent is to prevent Team A from being beyond the NZ at the snap so it is handled as a dead ball foul. If A were to snap while the player is still returning, clearly there should be an immediate shutdown and flag, just like we are now to do with the "illegal shift false start".
-
You must be misunderstanding the 2011 rule. B players in the blocking zone (extended to the sideline) at the snap are permitted to BBW in the blocking zone (except against a player in position to receive a backward pass). Picture this: CB B22 is in a 'press' position on split end A88 at the snap. A88 attempts to escape around B22 to run downfield, but B22 blocks him at the shins while both are still in the blocking zone (extended to the sideline), causing A88 to fall to the ground. QB A11 took the hand-to-hand snap, raised up looking for A88, but is unable to attempt a pass to A88, because A88 has been blocked to the ground.
Illegal in 2010, for certain. By current 2011 language, not prohibited (perhaps by inadvertent omission, but that's how it reads today).
I’m the deep official. As the deep guy my key is the widest receiver. How am I to know from 20 yards downfield whether he’s crossed the LOS or not. Hmmm…very interesting.
-
For those who may have started on the CFO test -- take a look at #28. There's a "hidden" editorial change to the 7-3-2 Exception for ING that's worth noting in order to answer the question correctly.
BTW, I like how the changes are highlighted in the PDF version, but this change was not highlighted. They're keeping us on our toes!
-
That is why I started this thread..to start listing what we find that was not listed as a rule change or editorial change. I finished going through the book (excluding Rule 12) and think I have the complete list now of hidden changes. Just need to type it up and post. I think your compadre Hursk, first found the one you mentioned. That one may not be a big deal in the grand scheme of "regular" football, but as was pointd out to me, it could be huge here in Texas in the 6-Man game where there is almost always a movement of the ball from the original snap receiver to another player early in the play.
-
I have never worked a 6 man game, but you're right Mike. In most games they have an upback who pitches back to the QB. This will be huge.
-
I am attaching a list of the "Hidden Changes". If anyone sees anything not on the list, please advise so I can update the list.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I have never worked a 6 man game, but you're right Mike. In most games they have an upback who pitches back to the QB. This will be huge.
You live in Texas and you've never worked a six-man game? That's messed up. I thought everybody worked six man in their virgin years. ;D Hell, some long-time vets are still workin' 'em (and loving it!).
-
Not many 6 man schools in deep east Texas. We've just gotten a few in the past 6-7 years.
-
Regarding the RTK foul, In the new book, I read -
5. When a defensive player’s contact against the kicker or holder is caused
by an opponent’s block (legal or illegal), there is no foul for running into
or roughing.
You had written -
Now it does not matter if a defender was legally OR
illegally blocked, if he runs into or roughs a kicker, he has
fouled.
I think you have to add the word 'not'.
-
Arrrggghhhh...I keep screwing the pooch on that. Corrected and updated version attached
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Found another goodie in Rule 2 (my favorite!) -- it's mentioned in the editorial changes, and highlighted in the PDF version, but if you blink it can be easily missed:
2-27-5: "Passer is a player that throws a forward pass." Used to be "legal forward pass."
Now RPS can be called on a legal or illegal pass, so we could have and RPS and ING on the same play and offset it.
-
On question 28 I still have no foul as there is no mention of the guard/passer being under duress or trying to conserve yardage. I think I see where they are going but it appears that there is more information needed.
-
TxMike,
Yes, signal 7 does appear to have been removed from some penalty statements, but not all. Incredibly, the places you think he would have dropped it would be 7-1-2 & 3 - Flase Starts, etc. But, he took it out of 7-1-5 - defensive offside, etc.
Go figure.
I have been told that S7 will be dropped from usage in 2012, anyway, but who the hell knows for sure. My head is spinning. 38 years of rule study has just been tossed into a big barrel, and around and around I'm going...
-
And, of course, the former AR 8-7-2-III is lost and gone. This was one of the very most important ARs in the book. It was the one that prevented the attacking team from getting a cheap safety because the defending team, after cartching or recovering a ball put into the defending team's end zone from the field of play by the attacking team, then fumbled the ball and the ball goes OB across the EZ sideline or end line. Even more importantly, it was the rock in the wall that keeps RR from making it a safety if B's fumble, in such a case, just happened to travel across the goal line and back into the end zone (no new impetus), where B recovers and is downed or the ball goes OB.
The former AR was in every rule book I ever had (38), and who knows how long it had been in place before that? Dave Nelson will be turning in his grave, and John Adams will be getting a nauseating feeling.
It will be wrong for the game to make these a safety.
-
And, of course, the former AR 8-7-2-III is lost and gone. This was one of the very most important ARs in the book. It was the one that prevented the attacking team from getting a cheap safety because the defending team, after cartching or recovering a ball put into the defending team's end zone from the field of play by the attacking team, then fumbled the ball and the ball goes OB across the EZ sideline or end line. Even more importantly, it was the rock in the wall that keeps RR from making it a safety if B's fumble, in such a case, just happened to travel across the goal line and back into the end zone (no new impetus), where B recovers and is downed or the ball goes OB.
The former AR was in every rule book I ever had (38), and who knows how long it had been in place before that? Dave Nelson will be turning in his grave, and John Adams will be getting a nauseating feeling.
It will be wrong for the game to make these a safety.
Why would removing an approved ruling from the book change the rule (the rule wasn't actually changed, right)? Just because the AR is no longer there doesn't mean the rule has changed does it?
-
Why would removing an approved ruling from the book change the rule (the rule wasn't actually changed, right)? Just because the AR is no longer there doesn't mean the rule has changed does it?
Not for me, it hasn't yet. But, the rule, as has been known and supported by former AR 8-7-2-III, was that (effectively) impetus could not be changed in an end zone. Here is the classic play:
B33 catches/intercepts/recovers A's pass, kick or fumble in B's end zone. B33 then fumbles in the end zone. The ball bounds to the B-1, where it either rebounds or is muffed back into B's end zone where B33 recovers it while grounded, or the ball travels out the side or back of the end zone.
John Adams affirmitively ruled this to be nothing more than a touchback. The fact that the fumbled ball just happened to travel into the field of play before it eventually returned to the end zone where it was declared dead behind the goal line in B's possession is of no consequence. The ball was put into the end zone from the field of play by Team A. B33's fumble did not put the ball into the end zone from the field of play, so the fumble did not change impetus.
John Adams, a bit of a strict interpretationist, stated that former AR 8-7-2-III did not say that the ball stayed in the end zone - it simply said that the ball went OB (i.e., became dead behind the goal line). Where it went between the time it was fumbled and became dead was of no consequence, as long as no new impetus was imparted to it while it was in the field of play.
Unfortunately, the language of 8-7-1 & 2 doesn't specifically say that impetus is what causes a ball to travel from the field of play into an end zone. Based on that, there are those (and I believe RR is one) that would have this be a safety, arguing that B33's fumble imparted new impetus. But, that 'interpretation' was previously hard to reconcile with former AR 8-7-2-III, as well as 8-7-2-b-1 Exception (which remains intact, BTW). Regarding 8-7-2-b-1-Exception: What is so special about a bat or a kick that would have them NOT change impetus, but a fumble would?
Without former 8-7-2-III, it will be easier to issue a bulletin play that makes this a safety.
And that will just be wrong.
Maybe I'm just paranoid. Maybe RR is not in the 'safety' camp. I would have no problem eating that crow, if need be. But I've heard from some very reliable sources that RR would have this be a safety. I hope I'm wrong and I have to eat some crow stew.
-
I'm not in the John Adams camp on this one. If Team B doesn't fumble a ball that subsequently exits the end zone and enters the field of play then they undoubtedly deserve a touchback. If they do, I'm not so sure. The ball exits the end zone- how does it get BACK in? Certainly not via Team A's pass.
Then again, I also don't think it's right if they fumble it from the EZ and it goes forward out of bounds in the field of play that they get a touchback. Should be B's ball at the OOB spot, I say.
-
[quote author=Andrew McCarthy link=topic=8021.msg76853#msg76853 date=1307132468
Then again, I also don't think it's right if they fumble it from the EZ and it goes forward out of bounds in the field of play that they get a touchback. Should be B's ball at the OOB spot, I say.
[/quote]
Are you discounting 2011 7-2-4-b-1?
What if Team A carried the ball into their own EZ, then fumbled and the loose ball rolled into the field of play and OB at the A-2? Would give the ball to Team A at the A-2?
-
Not for me, it hasn't yet. But, the rule, as has been known and supported by former AR 8-7-2-III, was that (effectively) impetus could not be changed in an end zone. Here is the classic play:
B33 catches/intercepts/recovers A's pass, kick or fumble in B's end zone. B33 then fumbles in the end zone. The ball bounds to the B-1, where it either rebounds or is muffed back into B's end zone where B33 recovers it while grounded, or the ball travels out the side or back of the end zone.
John Adams affirmitively ruled this to be nothing more than a touchback. The fact that the fumbled ball just happened to travel into the field of play before it eventually returned to the end zone where it was declared dead behind the goal line in B's possession is of no consequence. The ball was put into the end zone from the field of play by Team A. B33's fumble did not put the ball into the end zone from the field of play, so the fumble did not change impetus.
John Adams, a bit of a strict interpretationist, stated that former AR 8-7-2-III did not say that the ball stayed in the end zone - it simply said that the ball went OB (i.e., became dead behind the goal line). Where it went between the time it was fumbled and became dead was of no consequence, as long as no new impetus was imparted to it while it was in the field of play.
Unfortunately, the language of 8-7-1 & 2 doesn't specifically say that impetus is what causes a ball to travel from the field of play into an end zone. Based on that, there are those (and I believe RR is one) that would have this be a safety, arguing that B33's fumble imparted new impetus. But, that 'interpretation' was previously hard to reconcile with former AR 8-7-2-III, as well as 8-7-2-b-1 Exception (which remains intact, BTW). Regarding 8-7-2-b-1-Exception: What is so special about a bat or a kick that would have them NOT change impetus, but a fumble would?
Without former 8-7-2-III, it will be easier to issue a bulletin play that makes this a safety.
And that will just be wrong.
Maybe I'm just paranoid. Maybe RR is not in the 'safety' camp. I would have no problem eating that crow, if need be. But I've heard from some very reliable sources that RR would have this be a safety. I hope I'm wrong and I have to eat some crow stew.
don't worry - it will never happen :)
-
don't worry - it will never happen :)
Ha! I've slept many nights since, but if memory serves me correct I recall you saying something like that before about another play situation we discussed on here and then it happened in a high profile game you once had. ;D That's why I like this board because of the "will never happen" discussions that we have and they end up happening.
-
Ha! I've slept many nights since, but if memory serves me correct I recall you saying something like that before about another play situation we discussed on here and then it happened in a high profile game you once had. ;D That's why I like this board because of the "will never happen" discussions that we have and they end up happening.
well, JasonTX, ..whatever did happen in that game, didn't really happen because it never happens and that's my version of whatever did or did not happen! :)
-
Are you discounting 2011 7-2-4-b-1?
What if Team A carried the ball into their own EZ, then fumbled and the loose ball rolled into the field of play and OB at the A-2? Would give the ball to Team A at the A-2?
In that case I think it should be a safety. ;D
-
For those who may have started on the CFO test -- take a look at #28. There's a "hidden" editorial change to the 7-3-2 Exception for ING that's worth noting in order to answer the question correctly.
BTW, I like how the changes are highlighted in the PDF version, but this change was not highlighted. They're keeping us on our toes!
Since the guard was the player that received the snap, and he was outside the tackle box, his grounding of the pass was legal. Had the QB received the snap, then fumbled, and then the guard threw such a pass, it would be intentional grounding.
-
Since the guard was the player that received the snap, and he was outside the tackle box, his grounding of the pass was legal. Had the QB received the snap, then fumbled, and then the guard threw such a pass, it would be intentional grounding.
I'll offer the contrary position for discussion that the guard did not receive the snap, he received a backward pass, because the snap ends when it leaves the snapper's hands.
Seems to me the intent of this editorial addition is not to allow players other than the QB to enjoy the relief of being able to get rid of a pass while under pressure to avoid injury by having to hang in there. I don't think this play falls under that type of "relief."
I know, the definition of when a snap ends doesn't help in answering the question of what about the QB who muffs the snap to the ground then gets it back and throws the pass.
I'm going with a ING on this play. Didn't want to get a perfect score anyway. :)
-
I'll offer the contrary position for discussion that the guard did not receive the snap, he received a backward pass, because the snap ends when it leaves the snapper's hands.
Seems to me the intent of this editorial addition is not to allow players other than the QB to enjoy the relief of being able to get rid of a pass while under pressure to avoid injury by having to hang in there. I don't think this play falls under that type of "relief."
I know, the definition of when a snap ends doesn't help in answering the question of what about the QB who muffs the snap to the ground then gets it back and throws the pass.
I'm going with a ING on this play. Didn't want to get a perfect score anyway. :)
Which means we need a definition for receiving the snap. By your explanation, the QB in a 'shotgun' position would not be eligible to legally ground a pass. Hardly an 'outlandish' play these days, eh?
For what it is worth, in six-player football, the "receiver of the snap" may not advance the ball beyond the NZ. Although there is no definition for the "receiver of the snap," various official interpretations make it clear that such a player is the first Team A player to possess the ball after the snap. I totally agree with you that the primary practical intent of the new "editorial change" may be to extend the privilege of being able to legally ground the ball only to the team's QB, but that ain't what it says, yet. What? Will Team A have to designate their intended snap receiver prior to each play?
I don't see how anybody could ever get a perfect score.
-
Does RR actually author this test (or even vett it)? Obviously there are many small nuances to the rules and without such vetting we are left with the fact that the questions and answers may not be what RR has in mind in some nuanced scenarios.
-
I'll offer the contrary position for discussion that the guard did not receive the snap, he received a backward pass, because the snap ends when it leaves the snapper's hands.
Seems to me the intent of this editorial addition is not to allow players other than the QB to enjoy the relief of being able to get rid of a pass while under pressure to avoid injury by having to hang in there. I don't think this play falls under that type of "relief."
I know, the definition of when a snap ends doesn't help in answering the question of what about the QB who muffs the snap to the ground then gets it back and throws the pass.
I think the definition of "snap" is a bit ambiguous. Surprised?
Yes, 2-23-1-b states a snap ends when the ball leaves the snapper's hand. But, 2-23-1-a defines a snap as, "Legally snapping the ball (a snap) is handing or passing it backward from its position on the ground .... " The latter clearly denotes that a snap can include a backward pass; hence, does not necessarily end when snap leaves the snapper's hands.
AR 2-23-1-I supports the concept that, if a snap becomes a backward pass, it does not end when it leaves the snapper's hands.
"Fourth and goal on Team B’s five-yard line. A55’s legal snap is muffed
by A12 and (a) any player of Team A recovers and advances the ball into
the end zone, or (b) a player of Team B recovers and advances the ball.
RULING: The snap is a backward pass and may be advanced by any
player. (a) Touchdown. Since this is a backward pass and not a fumble
there is no restriction on a Team A player recovering and advancing the
ball. (b) Ball continues in play."
-
A quick search of the book shows that "receives" is used in the context of grasping a ball that has not yet been grounded, often times related to an airborne player attempting to catch a pass.
Question 28 has the guard recovering the ball, by definition, so in my opinion he has not "received" the snap.
Of course this would bring up the question of what happens if the shotgun snap rolls back to the QB who then rolls out and throws it into an area occupied by an eligible receiver- I think we wouldn't have IG in that case.
-
And, of course, the former AR 8-7-2-III is lost and gone. This was one of the very most important ARs in the book. It was the one that prevented the attacking team from getting a cheap safety because the defending team, after cartching or recovering a ball put into the defending team's end zone from the field of play by the attacking team, then fumbled the ball and the ball goes OB across the EZ sideline or end line. Even more importantly, it was the rock in the wall that keeps RR from making it a safety if B's fumble, in such a case, just happened to travel across the goal line and back into the end zone (no new impetus), where B recovers and is downed or the ball goes OB.
The former AR was in every rule book I ever had (38), and who knows how long it had been in place before that? Dave Nelson will be turning in his grave, and John Adams will be getting a nauseating feeling.
It will be wrong for the game to make these a safety.
Here is a play I sent RR last year...
2/6/B-16. B44 intercepts a forward pass in B's EZ and fumbles while still in B's EZ.The ball rolls into the field of play. The ball is muffed back into B's EZ by B45 at the B-4 and out of bounds.
And his response...
Safety. By rule, the fumbling team is responsible for the ball being in its end zone on its return trip into the end zone, so the result is a safety. There are those who want this to be a touchback, but I have not seen a justification for this based on the rules. If you have one, I would be interested in seeing it.
-
And, of course, the former AR 8-7-2-III is lost and gone.
What was in the "old" AR 8-7-2-III that's not in the current AR 8-7-2-III?
"Old" AR 8-7-2-III. A Team B player catches a kick in his end zone, then fumbles and, in attempting to recover the ball, muffs it out of bounds behind his own goal line. RULING: Touchback (Rule 8-6-1-a).
"New" AR 8-7-2-III. Team A punts. The ball is touched by Team B (no impetus added) and crosses Team B’s goal line. Then Team B falls on the ball or the ball goes out of bounds from the end zone. RULING: Touchback. The same ruling applies if a kick in flight strikes Team B or merely is deflected by an attempted catch. Team B may recover and advance, and it is a touchback if a Team B player is downed in the end zone or goes out of bounds behind the goal line (Rule 8-6-1-a).
-
What was in the "old" AR 8-7-2-III that's not in the current AR 8-7-2-III?
"Old" AR 8-7-2-III. A Team B player catches a kick in his end zone, then fumbles and, in attempting to recover the ball, muffs it out of bounds behind his own goal line. RULING: Touchback (Rule 8-6-1-a).
"New" AR 8-7-2-III. Team A punts. The ball is touched by Team B (no impetus added) and crosses Team B’s goal line. Then Team B falls on the ball or the ball goes out of bounds from the end zone. RULING: Touchback. The same ruling applies if a kick in flight strikes Team B or merely is deflected by an attempted catch. Team B may recover and advance, and it is a touchback if a Team B player is downed in the end zone or goes out of bounds behind the goal line (Rule 8-6-1-a).
The ball is touched in the field of play, then goes into the end zone. No mention of a fumble or other loss of possession (while in the end zone) by the defending team after they gain possession in the end zone (with impetus from the attacking team).
-
Hidden change or mistake?
In 2010 failure to wear mandatory equipment was a violation (see 2009/2010 rule 1-4-6).
In 2011 only wearing of illegal equipment is a violation (see 2011/2012 rule 1-4-8).
The title of article 8 shows "Mandatory and Illegal Equipment Enforcement" but in the rule is nothing about mandatory equipment.
-
For the "hidden" change about allowing only the receiver of the snap to ground/throw the ball away...this is the subject of Question 28 on the CFO test. FR-73 Rule 7-3-2-h exception
-
This hidden change just came to my attention.
Blocking Below the Waist:
In RR's notes regarding BBW, he quoted the rule as follows:
Rule 9-1-6 (Replaces current 9-1-2-e)
Blocking Below the Waist
ARTICLE 6.
There shall be no blocking below the waist (Rule 2-3-2).
Exceptions:
1. Against the ball carrier.
2. Before a change of possession on scrimmage downs that do not include kicks, blocking below the waist is allowed as follows:
(a) Players of the offensive team who at the snap are
(1) on the line of scrimmage more than seven yards from the middle lineman of the offensive formation, or
(2) in the backfield outside the tackle box, or
(3) in motion,
may block below the waist only along a north-south line or toward the sideline adjacent to them at the snap.
(b) Players of the offensive team who at the snap are inside the tackle box or on the line of scrimmage inside the seven-yard limit may block below the waist.
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b) except against a Team A player in position to receive a backward pass.
PENALTY: Administer as a Personal Foul
However in the rulebook it looks like this:
Blocking Below the Waist
ARTICLE 6. There shall be no blocking below the waist (Rule 2-3-2) (A.R. 9-1-6-I-VII).
Exceptions:
1. Against the runner.
2. Before a change of possession on scrimmage downs that do not include kicks, blocking below the waist is allowed as follows:
(a) Players of the offensive team who at the snap are:
(1) On the line of scrimmage more than seven yards from the middle lineman of the offensive formation; or
(2) In the backfield with any part of the body outside the tackle box; or
(3) In motion;
may block below the waist only along a north-south line (Rule 2-12-9) or toward the sideline adjacent to them at the snap.
(b) Players of the offensive team who at the snap are completely inside the tackle box or on the line of scrimmage inside the seven-yard limit may block below the waist.
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b) except against a Team A player in position to receive a backward pass.
Note the parts highlighted above. This is a change from the distinction between backfield players being unrestricted versus being restricted since the interpretation of being inside the tackle box was that any part of the body was inside the tackle box. The 2011 wording makes it unambiguous that the backfield player must be completely inside the tackle box to be considered an unrestricted player for the purpose of BBW.
-
Yeah, a bit of a hidden change, but not a big deal. It just tightens and further restricts BBW. Simply, if they ain't totally inside the tackle box, i.e., he has a leg or foot outside the TB, then he is considered outside the TB, and can only BBW N-S or toward his adjacent sideline. Formerly, we had to make the back totally outside the TB, to NOT be eligible to BBW toward the ball. Butnow that only have to have a foot, leg, etc. outside to be considerd outside the TB. OK by me.
-
Anybody notice that ANY lineman can now have his shoulders "approximately parallel" to the NZ? Formerly, only eligible ends could be "approximately" (which was interpreted as up to 30 degree offset). Ineligibles had to be parallel. We've been fussing at O-tackles to square up for years. Now, they can get that hallf step back in the backfield. Eh?
-
Hawkeye's post on BBW got the wheels turning, and I wonder if further clarifications may be coming to address a possible conflict regarding backs in the tackle box but outside the normal tackle position (i.e a wing back). A player in that position last year could not legally BBW toward position of ball.
Memo and rule references below. Thoughts?
From 9/8/2009 Clarification of Blocking Zone and BBW memo:
“2. Backs at the snap positioned with the frame of their body completely outside the right or left side of the blocking zone or completely outside the frame of the body of the second lineman from the middle lineman of the offensive formation in either direction toward a sideline, or in motion at the snap, are prohibited from blocking below the waist toward the original position of the ball in or behind the neutral zone and within 10 yards beyond the neutral zone. The frame of the body does not include arms or legs extended sideways.”
(Bold-faced words are new language replacing “tackle box”)
From 2011 Rule Book:
9-1-6- Exp 2(b): Players of the offensive team who at the snap are completely inside the tackle box or on the line of scrimmage inside the seven-yard limit may block below the waist.
-
Hawkeye's post on BBW got the wheels turning, and I wonder if further clarifications may be coming to address a possible conflict regarding backs in the tackle box but outside the normal tackle position (i.e a wing back). A player in that position last year could not legally BBW toward position of ball.
The only clarification I see that might be needed is regarding arms & legs, for 2011. Does being "...completely..." inside the tackle mean with all body parts? But, considering 9-1-6 Exception 1-(a)-(2) describes a person in the backfield with "...any part of the body outside the tackle box...," I really don't think there is any ambiguity. You are either totally within the TB (all body parts) and legal, or not.
-
@El Macman,
agree completely that if a player is not completely inside the tackle box, he's considered outside the box. However, a wing back in the position below (forgive the crude graphic!) could be outside the frame of the tackle with normal splits, but still inside the tackle box and therefore BBW in any direction based on current wording. This was the same issue in 2009 when the tackle box verbiage was introduced, hence the 9/8/2009 memo.
Can't imagine the intent of the new rule would be to make a BBW that was illegal last year, legal this year, but based on the current language, a wing back in the position shown below can BBW in any direction.
X O O
O
-
@El Macman,
agree completely that if a player is not completely inside the tackle box, he's considered outside the box. However, a wing back in the position below (forgive the crude graphic!) could be outside the frame of the tackle with normal splits, but still inside the tackle box and therefore BBW in any direction based on current wording. This was the same issue in 2009 when the tackle box verbiage was introduced, hence the 9/8/2009 memo.
Can't imagine the intent of the new rule would be to make a BBW that was illegal last year, legal this year, but based on the current language, a wing back in the position shown below can BBW in any direction.
X O O
O
I don't believe the frame of the tackle's body (or anybody's frame) is any longer a landmark. I don't even see that language in the rule, any longer. Only the tackle box. If he's totally inside the TB, he can BBW in any direction, anywhere (before a COP). Otherwise, he may only BBW N-S or toward his "adjacent" sideline.
I wish they'd come up with a better name than "tackle box," because, indeed, it conjures an image of something directly related to the "tackle" positions, when, in fact, it no longer does.
-
Yep, we need to 'unlearn' what we have come to know about this particular situation. Heard from our conference rules guru, and the 2009 interpretation has been flushed.
So we are left with a BBW which was a foul last year, that will be a legal block this year. Seems contrary to the player safety push from the commitee, but it is what it is.
Now the fun part - mechanics - how to determine that back is completely within the tackle box, and who's gonna be responsible? :-X
-
Now the fun part - mechanics - how to determine that back is completely within the tackle box, and who's gonna be responsible? :-X
Logistically, not that difficult (on paper), but it it will be a team effort. The R will have to know who is in the tackle box. If the H or L throw on a BBW, they'll just need to communicate to find out where he came from. If he was in the tackle box at the snap, pick it up.
What we need is one of those tv-magic superimposed images of the tackle box on the field, for each down (that we can see). Wouldn't that make it easy? Modern combat aircraft pilots have all kinds of navigation and targeting imagery on their helmet mounted displays, that stay fixed on the navigation point or target, regardless of the pilot's body or head movement. That's what we need. Glasses with real-time imagery of the tackle box, blocking zone, and adjacent sideline relative to each player. Not in my lifetime, but it could happen. :thumbup
-
El Macman, I hear Honig's will carry a cap with a HUD that does all this.
-
El Macman, I hear Honig's will carry a cap with a HUD that does all this.
Could bring new meaning to the term, "HUD-dle." LOL
-
If they do, does that mean reverting to dropping a bean bag for eligible recievers out of bounds?
-
B33 is returning a kick/interception/fumble, and attempts a backward pass to B10, but the pass goes forward and B10 advances for a TD. A77 takes two steps after B33 releases the pass and blocks B33 to the ground with an otherwise legal block.
Ruling:
-
Try from the 3. A11 scores a TD. During the down, B33 is flagged by the U for cursing him, with profanity.
Ruling:
-
B33 is returning a kick/interception/fumble, and attempts a backward pass to B10, but the pass goes forward and B10 advances for a TD. A77 takes two steps after B33 releases the pass and blocks B33 to the ground with an otherwise legal block.
Ruling:
Sounds like it is obvious that the pass has been thrown, so we have a foul by both teams. Team B may elect to take the ball after the enforcement of their penalty or to take offsetting fouls. My guess is that team B will decline team A's foul for roughing the passer, 1st and 10 for team B after five yards from the spot of the illegal forward pass.
This is a trivial play situation, change it a bit to have a livid team A coach:
Instead of B10 catching the illegal forward pass, have A99 intercept it and return it for a TD.
-
Try from the 3. A11 scores a TD. During the down, B33 is flagged by the U for cursing him, with profanity.
Ruling:
Penalty is declined by rule, as only personal fouls can be enforced from the succeeding spot. Team A scores two points. If B33 commits a second USC later, he will be ejected.
-
As I do every year (or every other now) I take the notes from the older rule book and put them in the new one. I'm on rule 1.4.2.b from the old book "on a scrimmage down, at least five offensive players on the scrimmage line shall be numbered 50 - 79." That statement is not in the new book, is this a change?? Seems pretty major and with all the other notices, nothing on this?
-
I'm on rule 1.4.2.b from the old book "on a scrimmage down, at least five offensive players on the scrimmage line shall be numbered 50 - 79." That statement is not in the new book, is this a change?? Seems pretty major and with all the other notices, nothing on this?
Take a look at 7-1-4-a-3.
It's a better fit in the discussion of Team A requirements at the snap.
-
Take a look at 7-1-4-a-3.
It's a better fit in the discussion of Team A requirements at the snap.
Thanks Diablo, slow going (already up to rule 2!) but that does make sense.
-
B33 is returning a kick/interception/fumble, and attempts a backward pass to B10, but the pass goes forward and B10 advances for a TD. A77 takes two steps after B33 releases the pass and blocks B33 to the ground with an otherwise legal block.
Ruling:
I believe RR missed an editorial change for 9-1-9. If you look at the verbiage, it uses both defensive player and Team A player in that section. In your situation, the team A player is indeed a defensive player under the definition, but I believe that the intent of this rule is only for Team B players against Team A passers.
-
Penalty is declined by rule, as only personal fouls can be enforced from the succeeding spot. Team A scores two points. If B33 commits a second USC later, he will be ejected.
We would have carried it over last year, as a live-ball-foul-penalized-as-a-dead-ball-foul (8-3-3-d-2, same for 2011). Why not for 2011? Considering RR edited 8-3-4-a and 10-2-5-a-1 to include Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls, I have a feeling 8-3-3-b-1 simply got overlooked. Why would we NOT carry over a UNS during a Try, but we would on a regular play.?
-
Why would we NOT carry over a UNS during a Try, but we would on a regular play.?
That's a good question, and my guess is that it is a mistake, but until RR speaks out, that's what the rules tell us to do...
-
I may have missed the discussion on this but has anyone noticed that the phrase "Inbounds Line" has been replaced with "hash marks"? I believe this was an NFHS change in 2010. How often does the NCAA rule book follow the lead of the NFHS rule book?
-
How often does the NCAA rule book follow the lead of the NFHS rule book?
Too bad they didn't with blocking below the waist.
-
Agreed, should have changed it to blocks below the waist are only legal both for offense and defense in the blocking zone extended until the ball has left the zone and left it at that. Now we have something that will be almost impossible to officiate, and even more difficult to explain, maybe that was the intent.
-
We would have carried it over last year, as a live-ball-foul-penalized-as-a-dead-ball-foul (8-3-3-d-2, same for 2011). Why not for 2011? Considering RR edited 8-3-4-a and 10-2-5-a-1 to include Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls, I have a feeling 8-3-3-b-1 simply got overlooked. Why would we NOT carry over a UNS during a Try, but we would on a regular play.?
Now I'm really confused. RR's note on UNS states:
5. If the defense commits a live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct foul during a down that ends in a touchdown, the penalty carries over to the try or the kickoff— just like a personal foul.
I couldn't find the 2011 rule authority for this, it must be there, can someone? But since it came from RR, I'm going with it.
So, even though this is a try, why wouldn't it be enforced on the KO? Hard to believe that the same bad act by B goes unpenalized just because it happened on a try!
What we have done last year?
-
Now I'm really confused. RR's note on UNS states:
5. If the defense commits a live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct foul during a down that ends in a touchdown, the penalty carries over to the try or the kickoff— just like a personal foul.
I couldn't find the 2011 rule authority for this, it must be there, can someone? But since it came from RR, I'm going with it.
So, even though this is a try, why wouldn't it be enforced on the KO? Hard to believe that the same bad act by B goes unpenalized just because it happened on a try!
What we have done last year?
Z99, you've hit the nail on the head. The 2011 book doesn't specifically have that provision, for Tries. I'm sure it was just an oversight, but, until somebody puts it in front of RR, it remains ambiguous. Just as 8-3-4 was edited to specifically include UNS fouls, 8-3-3-b-1 should also have been edited similarly, but it wasn't. Deliberate? Or oversight? I'm betting on oversight.
Carry 'em over.
-
Now I'm really confused. RR's note on UNS states:
5. If the defense commits a live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct foul during a down that ends in a touchdown, the penalty carries over to the try or the kickoff— just like a personal foul.
I couldn't find the 2011 rule authority for this, it must be there, can someone? But since it came from RR, I'm going with it.
So, even though this is a try, why wouldn't it be enforced on the KO? Hard to believe that the same bad act by B goes unpenalized just because it happened on a try!
What we have done last year?
10-2-5-a-1 takes care of the case when it is a down that ends in a touchdown.
-
10-2-5-a-1 takes care of the case when it is a down that ends in a touchdown.
Except 9-2-5-e tells us to go to rule 8 for administering penalties during or after a Try, i.e., 10-2-5-a-1 only applies to regular scrimmage plays and free kicks.
Previously, 8-3-3-d-2 allowed us to 'carry-over' UNS live-ball fouls (as LBFPADBFs). But UNS fouls during the down are now true live-ball fouls, so that rule no longer governs those fouls. 8-3-3-b-1 should cover them, if it had been edited similarly to 8-3-4 to include UNS fouls; however, it doesn't show the same editorial change. Is that deliberate? Is it an oversight? Personally, I think it is an oversight. But RR needs to address this issue and tell us.
If I hear nothing more on this, and it happens on the second play of my opening game, I'm carrying the penalty over (if that's what A elects), and hoping for the best.
-
Except 9-2-5-e tells us to go to rule 8 for administering penalties during or after a Try, i.e., 10-2-5-a-1 only applies to regular scrimmage plays and free kicks.
Previously, 8-3-3-d-2 allowed us to 'carry-over' UNS live-ball fouls (as LBFPADBFs). But UNS fouls during the down are now true live-ball fouls, so that rule no longer governs those fouls. 8-3-3-b-1 should cover them, if it had been edited similarly to 8-3-4 to include UNS fouls; however, it doesn't show the same editorial change. Is that deliberate? Is it an oversight? Personally, I think it is an oversight. But RR needs to address this issue and tell us.
If I hear nothing more on this, and it happens on the second play of my opening game, I'm carrying the penalty over (if that's what A elects), and hoping for the best.
I was simply addressing Z99's initial question of where that was addressed for touchdowns.
I understand your issue with the absence of the needed language in 8-3-3-b-1 and I believe that you are correct in assuming that it was an oversight by RR, much as I stated above that I believe he missed an editorial change in 9-1-9 as a result of the change in the definition of a passer. Your other thread regarding the enormity of the editorial changes in this book is very apt. I know there are those on this board who may have RR's ear, hopefully we do hear further on these issues.
-
Except 9-2-5-e tells us to go to rule 8 for administering penalties during or after a Try, i.e., 10-2-5-a-1 only applies to regular scrimmage plays and free kicks.
Previously, 8-3-3-d-2 allowed us to 'carry-over' UNS live-ball fouls (as LBFPADBFs). But UNS fouls during the down are now true live-ball fouls, so that rule no longer governs those fouls. 8-3-3-b-1 should cover them, if it had been edited similarly to 8-3-4 to include UNS fouls; however, it doesn't show the same editorial change. Is that deliberate? Is it an oversight? Personally, I think it is an oversight. But RR needs to address this issue and tell us.
If I hear nothing more on this, and it happens on the second play of my opening game, I'm carrying the penalty over (if that's what A elects), and hoping for the best.
Agree, always better to ask for forgiveness than permission! :)
-
Immediately below are responses from RR to the two questions that are below his responses
---------------------------------------------------------------------
From: Rogers Redding
Date: July 6, 2011 9:33:57 AM CDT
Subject: Re: Rules Question
Thanks for these questions.
In the case of UNS fouls on the try: the questioner is correct that 8-3-3-b-1 covers only personal fouls, and it is probably an oversight that UNS fouls were not included here. Note that in 10-2-5-a-1 (FR-98) unsportsmanlike conduct fouls are included. Thus the spirit of the rule would dictate that UNS fouls should also be included along with personal fouls in 8-3-3-b-1.
Therefore, by interpretation, penalties for live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct fouls by players are to be treated like personal fouls in 8-3-3-b-1. I will include such a play in the first play situations bulletin of the season.
In the case of roughing the passer, as the questioner says, the intent of the change is to give roughing protection to the QB who grounds the ball or is beyond the neutral zone when he throws a forward pass. This is a player-safety issue and such a player should not be susceptible to a "free shot" by an opponent. If it happens after a change of possession or during a kickoff the same logic applies. It would look odd, no doubt, but such plays happen so seldom that it is not worth making an exception.
Hope this helps!
Take care,
Rog
------------------------------------------------------------
The questions:
Previously, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls that occurred during a down were classified as "live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball fouls," and, when they occurred during a Try, they could be 'carried over' to the kickoff or succeeding spot with rule 8-3-3-d-2. For 2011, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls that occur during a down are live-ball fouls, so 8-3-3-d-2 no longer covers those fouls during a Try. Currently, 8-3-3-b-1 covers only personal fouls, and not unsportsmanlike conduct fouls. If interpreted strictly, for team A to accept any points on a Try, penalties for live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct fouls would have to be declined.
I'm sure we are still to 'carry-over' penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct fouls during a successful Try to the kickoff or succeeding spot, but the current rule language doesn't seem to cover this. Can you clarify?
The editorial change to 2-27-5 removed the requirement for a pass to be legal for a player to be considered a passer. While this gives roughing-the-passer protection to a QB that intentionally grounds a pass, or throws a pass from beyond the neutral zone, it also would also seem to give protection to a player that throws a forward pass when it is not permitted, such as during a kickoff, or after a change of possession. For example, B33 is returning a kickoff or interception when he tries to pass the ball backward to a teammate, but the pass goes forward, and, after releasing the pass, A77 takes two steps and knocks B33 to the ground. Roughing the passer? Can you clarify?
-
Y'all take a look at 8-4-2-b (2011), and someone tell me why RR changed it to read like it was before 2003, when John Adams changed it to be completely unambiguous.
-
Actually, I think the new (old?) 8-4-2-b is better. It includes the possible case where a short kick crosses the neutral zone, bounces back behind the NZ, is touched by team B behind the NZ, and subsequently goes out of bounds beyond the NZ. The 2009 rules don't directly address this issue (and thus it would mean that team B gets the ball at the OOB spot), but the 2011 wording clearly says that the touching by team B is effectively disregarded and the ball belongs to team B at the previous spot (or the B-20).
What's the ambiguity (re)introduced by this change?
-
Actually, I think the new (old?) 8-4-2-b is better. It includes the possible case where a short kick crosses the neutral zone, bounces back behind the NZ, is touched by team B behind the NZ, and subsequently goes out of bounds beyond the NZ. The 2009 rules don't directly address this issue (and thus it would mean that team B gets the ball at the OOB spot), but the 2011 wording clearly says that the touching by team B is effectively disregarded and the ball belongs to team B at the previous spot (or the B-20).
What's the ambiguity (re)introduced by this change?
The ambiguity is in the fact that B could, indeed, get the ball at the previous spot or the B-20, versus the spot where it went OB. If B touches a scrimmage kick after the ball has crossed the NZ, then they should no longer have the ability to get the ball at the PS or the B-20. If they touch it beyond the NZ, clearly they don't (by old or new rules). But the ambiguity is in why should they be able to get the ball at the PS or B-20 just because the ball happened to rebound behind the former NZ (where they touch it)? Effectively, the NZ no longer exists after a scrimmage kick has crossed the NZ. John Adams affirmed that when he changed the wording in 2003.