Author Topic: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum  (Read 4277 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline BetweenTheLines

  • *
  • Posts: 133
  • FAN REACTION: +10/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« on: April 09, 2019, 08:48:41 AM »
B1 intercepts A's pass at B's 4-yard line and his momentum carries him into his end zone where he subsequently fumbles the ball and it rolls out of bounds at his 2. After the change of possession B15 clipped at B's 10 yard line. Classic old question I believe but help me out again with the enforcement.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2116
  • FAN REACTION: +301/-25
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #1 on: April 09, 2019, 08:50:21 AM »
Basic spot is the momentum spot.

Edit:  wrong forum.  Thought it was NCAA
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 08:57:11 AM by bossman72 »

Offline Ump33

  • *
  • Posts: 265
  • FAN REACTION: +8/-3
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #2 on: April 09, 2019, 09:26:29 AM »
NFHS ... Momentum is off when the ball came out of the EZ ((8-5-2 Exception requirements are not satisfied).  Foul is during a Running Play and the Basic Spot is the EOR and the enforcement spot is the EOR (AB1) = Safety
« Last Edit: April 09, 2019, 09:31:39 AM by Ump33 »

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 1269
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #3 on: April 09, 2019, 09:36:58 AM »
I've been arguing myself in circles on this one, because I can't justify safety philosophically (it doesn't *feel* right), but I think that's right by rule.

Momentum is off because the ball did not become dead in the end zone. If momentum is off, the only remaining ruling is a basic spot in B's EZ with B providing the force to put the ball there -- safety.

Online GA Umpire

  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 346
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #4 on: April 09, 2019, 10:56:19 AM »
NFHS ... Momentum is off when the ball came out of the EZ ((8-5-2 Exception requirements are not satisfied).  Foul is during a Running Play and the Basic Spot is the EOR and the enforcement spot is the EOR (AB1) = Safety

Ralph, KWH;
Has there been any discussion in the Rules Committee about changing the "unfairness" of this ruling? ????

Offline Etref

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2284
  • FAN REACTION: +85/-28
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #5 on: April 09, 2019, 02:11:38 PM »
Not an NFHS guy, but what is unfair?

B fumbled the ball causing it to go OOB in the end zone. There should be be some consequence.
" I don't make the rules coach!"

Offline markrischard

  • *
  • Posts: 52
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #6 on: April 09, 2019, 02:39:03 PM »
Actually, OOB at the 2.

Online GA Umpire

  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 346
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-3
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #7 on: April 09, 2019, 03:11:18 PM »
Not an NFHS guy, but what is unfair?

B fumbled the ball causing it to go OOB in the end zone. There should be be some consequence.
The fact that the momentum exception applies if the fumble does not go out of the end zone. 
If the fumble goes oob over the sideline in the end zone, the momentum exception applies.  If the ball becomes dead without a fumble, the exception applies.
The unfair part (IMO) is the safety if the ball is fumbled into the field of play and not carried there by the ball carrier.

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 1269
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-13
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #8 on: April 09, 2019, 03:19:11 PM »
I could absolutely live with the following interpretation of the current rules:

B brings the ball into their own end zone via momentum. After B gains possession of the ball, team B commits a live ball foul. The basic spot for enforcement is determined as with any other play:

If the foul occurs while B is in possession, it is a running play and the basic spot is the end of the run.
If B fumbles the ball (as in the scenario posted) and the foul is after the fumble, loose ball foul, basic spot is previous spot (aka, end of the run).

In either scenario, the momentum exception to the end of the run kicks in because the force into the end zone was the momentum of B, and the basic spot is the spot where B gained possession.

If B carries the ball out of the end zone or either team gains possession of the ball in the field of play after the fumble, then momentum is off the table (as it is now). This only fixes the "B fumbles the ball into the field of play, but nobody gains possession before it goes OOB at the 2" quirk.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #9 on: April 09, 2019, 03:31:08 PM »
I also agree this isn't completely unfair because B did fumble the ball and didn't recover it and they committed a foul. I do see the inconsistency of whether the fumble goes OOB in the end zone or the field of play, but it's no different if the runner takes the ball the B2 or runs out in the end zone. Momentum is off in the former but not the latter.

NCAA handles this differently because it's a forward fumble out of bounds which brings it back to the spot of the fumble. Thus momentum still applies. I think it's a good example where rule design can work better in NCAA.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 4727
  • FAN REACTION: +341/-919
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #10 on: April 09, 2019, 07:49:00 PM »
I also agree this isn't completely unfair because B did fumble the ball and didn't recover it and they committed a foul. I do see the inconsistency of whether the fumble goes OOB in the end zone or the field of play, but it's no different if the runner takes the ball the B2 or runs out in the end zone. Momentum is off in the former but not the latter.

NCAA handles this differently because it's a forward fumble out of bounds which brings it back to the spot of the fumble. Thus momentum still applies. I think it's a good example where rule design can work better in NCAA.

I've always thought the logic simply, that the "Momentum Exception" is designed to relieve the original responsibility of forcing the ball into the End Zone, which seems consistent in both codes.  NCAA rules seems to have more of an issue with "forward fumbles" at their level.

Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 1084
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-8
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #11 on: April 09, 2019, 10:10:53 PM »
I've always thought the logic simply, that the "Momentum Exception" is designed to relieve the original responsibility of forcing the ball into the End Zone, which seems consistent in both codes.  NCAA rules seems to have more of an issue with "forward fumbles" at their level.
They actually don't have an issue with it because they gain nothing by doing it. The rule exists to prevent someone from doing it intentionally. I'm sure I can count on one hand the number of times it has happened in my games the past few years. And many of them probably only went forward a yard and the LTG or goal line wasn't involved. I wouldn't consider it an issue in HS either, but it would be a good rule to have for when it happens.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 4654
  • FAN REACTION: +864/-28
  • SEE IT-THINK IT-CALL IT
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #12 on: April 10, 2019, 07:56:51 AM »
Ralph, KWH;
Has there been any discussion in the Rules Committee about changing the "unfairness" of this ruling? ????
IN A TRIP BACK MEMORY LANE......

Before 1982 : B intercepts ball at B's 2, momentum carries him into EZ where he falls = safety. Then along came Mo'.

Before 1996 : B1 intercepts pass in EZ, is downed there, while B2 holds at B's 10 after COP = safety.
                     B intercepts pass in EZ, A tackles him by FM in EZ = penalty declined, as basic spot was goal line. Then along came the basic spot @ B's 20.

Corrective changes took the "unfairness" out of the above. There are still some situations that you guys has posted that some would consider unfair but would carry a laundry list of exceptions. Exceptions are an exception in our code. IMHO, when those rare events occur, our best response is :

[/"COACH, BY RULE...."

PS : I believe KWH is still reveling in the success of both Oregon Ducks dancing deep into the Big Dance pHiNzuP.....why isn't the men's team called The Drakes  ??? ??? ?
b]
« Last Edit: April 10, 2019, 08:24:47 AM by Ralph Damren »

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1313
  • FAN REACTION: +36/-50
Re: Penalty Enforcement and Momentum
« Reply #13 on: April 10, 2019, 12:14:19 PM »
From a common sense standpoint, as Bossman indicated : basic spot should be = Momentum Spot. I feel the NCAA has it right (in spirit)!

It SHOULD BE argued that, if the "requirements" of the momentum rule are met, B did not TECHNICALLY put the ball in the EZ.

If B is tackled in the EZ, the FED has realized that B should not be "penalized"; and the next snap is at the Momentum Spot.  Simply, after COP, because B fumbles in the EZ, then fouls anywhere except the EZ, should not change that philosophy.

IMHO,this is one situation which should be changed...