beanbagging

[zebraken]

is there ever a reason to beanbag the spot of an interception?

[Roscoe]

No. We will never need that spot to penalize a team from where possession is gained. After the change of possession, fouls would either be administered as spot fouls or from the end of the run.

[InsideTheStripes]

Not under the NFHS rule set.

[zebraken]

careful now.....read the question carefully.

[bama_stripes]

Not simply because of the INT itself.  You could have a MX, which would require a bag.

[TampaSteve]

Per NFHS rules & mechanics, no reason to bag an Int.
However, if someone wants to spot it "just in case" there is an IW, it would serve some sort of purpose.

[maven]

Not simply because of the INT itself.  You could have a MX, which would require a bag.

But then you're not bagging the INT, as you say. So the answer to the OP is still no.

Beanbags mark enforcement spots in NFHS mechanics (Ohio's insistence that we bag fumbles behind the NZ notwithstanding). Spot of INT is not an enforcement spot.

If the OP is asking about informal mechanics, then I suppose the answer would be, it depends on whose informal mechanics you adopt.

[VALJ]

Per NFHS rules & mechanics, no reason to bag an Int.
However, if someone wants to spot it "just in case" there is an IW, it would serve some sort of purpose.

If there were an IW after the INT, wouldn't B get to keep the ball at the spot where they were at the time of the IW?

Here's a good one, though - what if the B player fumbles during his return, and THEN we have an IW while the ball is loose?  Previous spot, since it occured during a loose ball, right? 

[Atlanta Blue]

If there were an IW after the INT, wouldn't B get to keep the ball at the spot where they were at the time of the IW?

Here's a good one, though - what if the B player fumbles during his return, and THEN we have an IW while the ball is loose?  Previous spot, since it occured during a loose ball, right?

No, from the spot where they lost possession, which is why you bag the fumble, not the INT.

But I still don't get why marking the spot of the INT when inside the 5 and momentum carries the defender into the end zone isn't "bagging the spot of the INT".  Seems like that's exactly what you are marking.

[maven]

But I still don't get why marking the spot of the INT when inside the 5 and momentum carries the defender into the end zone isn't "bagging the spot of the INT".  Seems like that's exactly what you are marking.

It's bagging a lot of spots: the INT, the 3 YL (or whatever), that bunch of grass. But it's those only coincidentally.

What it's properly bagging is the momentum spot (not a rule book term, as you know), where possession was gained, and to which the ball will return under the momentum exception if certain other things occur.

[Atlanta Blue]

What it's properly bagging is the momentum spot (not a rule book term, as you know), where possession was gained, and to which the ball will return under the momentum exception if certain other things occur.

And it was gained via interception, which means you are marking the spot of the interception!

So to the original question:  "is there ever a reason to beanbag the spot of an interception?", the answer must be yes, as you need to bag that SPOT of the interception, because that SPOT of the interception may well become you "momentum spot".  But when bagged, we don't know if it will be a momentum spot, as it will only become a momentum spot if other things happen, while we know it was the spot of the interception.

[TampaSteve]

you guys with your momentium exceptions.   

 

Sans momentium exception, NFHS mechanic and/or rule requires baggin an int.   

[VALJ]

No, from the spot where they lost possession, which is why you bag the fumble, not the INT.

Good catch, AB.  I hope you didn't just save me from a screwup, since it would mean I was dealing with an IW, but thanks for catching that!

[Curious]

you guys with your momentium exceptions.   

 

Sans momentium exception, NFHS mechanic and/or rule requires baggin an int.   

Huh?

"Sans (without) momentum exception,......bag an INT"??  What rule/mechanic is that?

[maven]

And it was gained via interception, which means you are marking the spot of the interception!

So to the original question:  "is there ever a reason to beanbag the spot of an interception?", the answer must be yes, as you need to bag that SPOT of the interception, because that SPOT of the interception may well become you "momentum spot".  But when bagged, we don't know if it will be a momentum spot, as it will only become a momentum spot if other things happen, while we know it was the spot of the interception.

It's the "momentum spot" because it was possessed, not because it was intercepted. And it's still the "momentum spot" whether or not we end up spotting the ball there, just as the basic spot is still the basic spot whether or not we enforce a penalty from there.

So to the question, "is there ever a reason to beanbag the spot of an interception?" the answer is NO. You're not bagging it because it's an interception, and that's what defines "spot of an interception." This is so even though the "momentum spot" can sometimes be the spot of an interception.

I think the distinction matters for the same reason that it matters whether you're bagging a fumble or the end of the run beyond the NZ: not all fumbles are enforcement spots, and that's what the bag in this case is supposed to mark. Those who think the bag is supposed to mark a fumble AS SUCH sometimes forget the real purpose of the bag.

[Atlanta Blue]

It's the "momentum spot" because it was possessed, not because it was intercepted.

A distinction without a difference.

It was possessed because it was intercepted.  If it hadn't been intercepted, it wouldn't be a "momentum spot", which, as you said, isn't even a defined term in the rule book, only a concept.

It's like saying you aren't bagging the end of a scrimmage kick, you're bagging the spot of possession by R.  Yes, but that possession is only an issue because it's the end of a kick.

If the defense intercepts the ball inside the five and is moving backward, you had d@mn sure better have a bag on that spot!

[maven]

A distinction without a difference.

Au contraire, mon frère, I explained the difference in my post. It links bagging to the wrong concept (interception vs. momentum).

[sir55]

Sometimes I read these things and my head hurts.  AB you are correct.  When the momentum exception is in effect, the spot of the catch or recovery is marked by a bean bag.  If the catch is the catch of an interception, then that is one time (at least) that the spot of an interception would be marked by a bean bag.

[Rulesman]

Sometimes I read these things and my head hurts.  AB you are correct.  When the momentum exception is in effect, the spot of the catch or recovery is marked by a bean bag.  If the catch is the catch of an interception, then that is one time (at least) that the spot of an interception would be marked by a bean bag.

But... it's not the INT we are bagging, it's the potential momentum exception that's being bagged. Semantics, maybe?

[Eastshire]

It's the "momentum spot" because it was possessed, not because it was intercepted. And it's still the "momentum spot" whether or not we end up spotting the ball there, just as the basic spot is still the basic spot whether or not we enforce a penalty from there.

So to the question, "is there ever a reason to beanbag the spot of an interception?" the answer is NO. You're not bagging it because it's an interception, and that's what defines "spot of an interception." This is so even though the "momentum spot" can sometimes be the spot of an interception.

I think the distinction matters for the same reason that it matters whether you're bagging a fumble or the end of the run beyond the NZ: not all fumbles are enforcement spots, and that's what the bag in this case is supposed to mark. Those who think the bag is supposed to mark a fumble AS SUCH sometimes forget the real purpose of the bag.

Let me boil your answer down to what I get from it:

Is there ever a time we bag an interception? Yes, when it's a momentum spot.

Saying you never bag interceptions is going to lead an inexperienced official to not bag a momentum spot because it was an interception.

[ECILLJ]

Let me boil your answer down to what I get from it:

Is there ever a time we bag an interception? Yes, when it's a momentum spot.

Saying you never bag interceptions is going to lead an inexperienced official to not bag a momentum spot because it was an interception.

+1

[maven]

Saying you never bag interceptions is going to lead an inexperienced official to not bag a momentum spot because it was an interception.

And saying you bag some interceptions will lead inexperienced officials to cover their butts and bag them all.

If you're worried about inexperienced officials, why not teach them to bag the momentum spot, regardless of whether it's a pass, kick, or fumble that B/R is catching/recovering?

Link the proper mechanic to the proper concept.

[waltjp]

A distinction without a difference.

It was possessed because it was intercepted.  If it hadn't been intercepted, it wouldn't be a "momentum spot", which, as you said, isn't even a defined term in the rule book, only a concept.

It's like saying you aren't bagging the end of a scrimmage kick, you're bagging the spot of possession by R.  Yes, but that possession is only an issue because it's the end of a kick.

If the defense intercepts the ball inside the five and is moving backward, you had darn sure better have a bag on that spot!

Coach, using your logic we'd be bagging the spot of fumble recoveries, too.  We're only bagging the spot of an interception inside B's 5-yard line if his momentum carries him into the end zone.  Momentum is the reason, not the INT.

[Eastshire]

And saying you bag some interceptions will lead inexperienced officials to cover their butts and bag them all.

If you're worried about inexperienced officials, why not teach them to bag the momentum spot, regardless of whether it's a pass, kick, or fumble that B/R is catching/recovering?

Link the proper mechanic to the proper concept.

I'm fine with all that. Just don't say you don't bag interceptions. Say you only bag an interception when it's a momentum spot because you bag all momentum spots.

[maven]

Just don't say you don't bag interceptions.

I don't bag interceptions as such.