Recent Posts

11

NCAA Discussion / Re: Batting/Fumble/EZ question

« Last post by bossman72 on March 04, 2026, 10:32:19 PM »

Shaw put that AR in place in 2021. I honestly believe Shaw misreads 8-5–1-a where it says “…possession of a player…”. It goes on to say, “…on, above, or beyond THEIR own goal line…” Shaw seems to think the rule means a player of either team. No. It means a player of the defending team, not the attacking team. So, you and I agree that, by rule, AR 8-5-1-XI should result in a TD. The impetus rule can certainly supersede the 4th down fumble rule. Personally, I’m OK with that. But, that would only mean that the impetus rules apply 100%, and those rules would have this be a TD.

Somebody should discuss this with Shaw.

I never got my panties in a twist about this ruling because it will never happen.  I don't agree with Shaw on this one.  The result of the play should be B 1/10 @ B6.  This is my own personal theory...  4th down fumble rule, the ball instantly is brought back to the spot of the fumble after the recovery.  The physical recovery spot is not the actual end of the play.  Therefore the impetus/safety/touchback discussion is irrelevant. Absent the 4th down fumble rule, this play is a touchdown.  Nothing to do with impetus.

12

Basketball / MO Girls BB game being resumed in 3q after scoring mistake

« Last post by dammitbobby on March 04, 2026, 09:08:03 PM »

I'm not a basketball ref but this seems pretty wild:

Missouri Girls Basketball playoff game is being resumed with :54 to go in the 3Q after a scoring mistake was made and subsequently a procedural error occurred which caused a misapplication of rules.

https://x.com/BobGreenburg/status/2029174818772267514

13

NCAA Discussion / Re: Batting/Fumble/EZ question

« Last post by ElvisLives on March 04, 2026, 01:57:43 PM »

AR 8-5-1 XI,  why is this not a touchdown?

Shaw put that AR in place in 2021. I honestly believe Shaw misreads 8-5–1-a where it says “…possession of a player…”. It goes on to say, “…on, above, or beyond THEIR own goal line…” Shaw seems to think the rule means a player of either team. No. It means a player of the defending team, not the attacking team. So, you and I agree that, by rule, AR 8-5-1-XI should result in a TD. The impetus rule can certainly supersede the 4th down fumble rule. Personally, I’m OK with that. But, that would only mean that the impetus rules apply 100%, and those rules would have this be a TD.

Somebody should discuss this with Shaw.

14

NCAA Discussion / Re: Batting/Fumble/EZ question

« Last post by Stinterp on March 04, 2026, 10:24:15 AM »

AR 8-5-1 XI,  why is this not a touchdown?

15

NCAA Discussion / Re: Batting/Fumble/EZ question

« Last post by dammitbobby on March 04, 2026, 10:12:44 AM »

While that was the conclusion I came to, the quiz's correct answer was a safety.

There does appear to be conflicting rules language here (as far as I can tell):

7-4-2-a-Exception 2: On fourth down before a change of team possession, when a Team A fumble is caught or recovered by a Team A player other than the fumbler, the ball is dead. If the catch or recovery is beyond the spot of the fumble, the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble. If the catch or recovery is behind the spot of the fumble, the ball remains at the spot of the catch or recovery.

So the  4th down fumble rule (above) says that the ball is returned to spot of the fumble.

But, 8-7-2-b-1 states that initial impetus is considered expended and the responsibility for the ball’s progress is charged to a player if that player kicks a ball not in player possession or bats a loose ball
after it strikes the ground, and c) a loose ball retains its original status when there is new impetus (which in this case, means that the loose ball is still considered a fumble, but B is responsible for where it winds up.) So it's B's fault the ball is in the EZ.

So one rule says this would be a scoring play (safety, 2 points for A) while another rule says no, that isn't where the ball should be declared dead.

But what if it was 3rd down? This would be a safety. I don't see why A is denied the beneficial consequence of two points, just because it's 4th down, due to the intentional act of B. And I get that's what the 4th down fumble rule says, but it seems odd to me that B's bat essentially negates any possibility of negative consequence for them from being scored on.

16

NCAA Discussion / Re: Batting/Fumble/EZ question

« Last post by Stinterp on March 04, 2026, 09:48:31 AM »

4th down fumble rule, Safety,  AR 8-5-1 XI, ball dead when recovered by A96,  B's batting is legal, however new impetus is added by B. (assuming the ball was grounded).

17

NCAA Discussion / Batting/Fumble/EZ question

« Last post by dammitbobby on March 04, 2026, 09:15:57 AM »

4/Goal @ B-10. RB A33 fumbles the ball at the B-6. B99 intentionally bats the ball backwards from the B-4 and it rolls into the EZ where A96 jumps on the ball.

Ruling?

This is another interesting one that I missed on  quiz... I feel like we've probably discussed this one before, and as far as I can tell there is a conflict in the rules about the outcome.

18

NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)

« Last post by bossman72 on March 03, 2026, 10:01:53 AM »

Yeah with 8 man, you'd probably just put the CJ under the posts with the R.
In 7 man, you'd probably put the U under with the R.
Everyone else remains the same.

19

NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)

« Last post by Ralph Damren on March 03, 2026, 07:55:18 AM »

So, what happens if the kick is short? Is is treated just like a free kick? I.e., B can return? Ball is dead if it touches the ground in the end zone (untouched by B)? Ball is alive and legally recoverable by either team in the field of play? If unsuccessful, B gets the ball at the B-25?

I'l go on record as saying that the NCAA does not need this rule.

It is treated just like a kickoff, same rules other than a field goal can be scored. Mechanics differ slightly, chains would be set to illustrate the 10 yard netural zone for the players. R & U are under the pipes to make the call. IMHO, this could be considered an "unicorn" rule, slightly behind that of the "pregnant fullback" (9-9-3). Probably on some officials' bucket list, as it was on mine  .

The only reason given was : Tp be the same as NFHS and NFL 

20

NCAA Discussion / Re: NCAA Rule Changes (Proposed)

« Last post by Kalle on March 03, 2026, 03:19:07 AM »

So, what happens if the kick is short? Is is treated just like a free kick? I.e., B can return? Ball is dead if it touches the ground in the end zone (untouched by B)? Ball is alive and legally recoverable by either team in the field of play? If unsuccessful, B gets the ball at the B-25?

I'l go on record as saying that the NCAA does not need this rule.

I guess we will see if NCAA will adopt NFL or NFHS rules for the fair catch free kick (assuming that they are different, I have no idea) or invent something of their own. FWIW my opinions to your questions are that a FCFK is just a FK that can score. If it does not score all rules pertaining to free kicks apply with the "exception" that team B fouls that would be enforced from the previous spot (or offsetting fouls) would obviously allow team A to either rekick or start a new series of downs after the penalty is enforced.. Anything else would be stupid.