6-3-2 rule change?

[Kalle]

What's your take on this play from Rom's first weekly quiz, with the 2017 version of the 6-3-2 rule?

Try B18. The penalty for a Team A unsportsmanlike foul after the touchdown has been enforced on the try. A7's kick is blocked and rolls beyond the neutral zone. A76 muffs the ball on B's 2. B56 then muffs the ball on B's 1. The ball rolls into B's end zone where A64 recovers the ball.

After you've answered that, answer this:

4/20 at A1. A8 punts from deep in the end zone. The punt is high and short and lands at A's 2 and bounces into team A end zone. A55 muffs the ball in the end zone, the ball bounces to A's 2 where B90 muffs it, and A32 recovers the kick at A's 3.

[NVFOA_Ump]

1.  A76 muff on the try, illegal touching - is ignored per 2017 editorial change, and the ball remains loose until recovered by A64 in the EZ.  2 point TD on the try.

2.  B's ball 1st & 10 at the A3.

[ElvisLives]

Wow.  That ain't an editorial change - that's a bloody stinkin' rule change!  Did I miss some sort of separate announcement or document that presented this?

Maybe I just missed this discussion earlier, but this is the first I've heard this.  Let's focus on frickin' jersey numbers and not tell anybody about a rule change that can make the difference between a 2-point touchdown and an unsuccessful 1-point field goal attempt.  Geez.

Kalle, thanks for bringing it to our (or my, anyway) attention.

Robert

[Kalle]

It may be that the intent of the language change is not to create a rule change, as there were no questions on this in the NCAA test. So stay tuned...

[ChicagoZebra]

Very interesting. It is consistent with PSK fouls not existing on trys or in overtime - B cannot put the ball in play next at that spot, so essentially the rule cannot exist.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Very interesting. It is consistent with PSK fouls not existing on trys or in overtime - B cannot put the ball in play next at that spot, so essentially the rule cannot exist.

Except that this "editorial change" results in team A directly benefitting from an illegal touch of a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ.  Do you think that is really what the rules makers intended???  I'm guessing no.

[Thatsmyflag]

Please explain how you arrived at the answer:  "2.  B's ball 1st & 10 at the A3."

[Kalle]

Please explain how you arrived at the answer:  "2.  B's ball 1st & 10 at the A3."

Yes, by rule it will be team A's ball, 1/10 at A-3 (the illegal touching in team A's EZ is ignored, a scrimmage kick is first touched by team B beyond the NZ, so the recovery by team A is legal), and this has not changed this year.

[bossman72]

1.  A76 muff on the try, illegal touching - is ignored per 2017 editorial change, and the ball remains loose until recovered by A64 in the EZ.  2 point TD on the try.

Where is this editorial change?  I cannot find it.

[Kalle]

Where is this editorial change?  I cannot find it.

Rule 6-3-2-d in the new 2017 rule book is:

Illegal touching on a try, in extra periods, or in Team A’s end zone is ignored.

The part about tries and extra periods is marked as a change, but it is not considered a major editorial change (which would support the reading that team A would not score a TD in the OP)...

[NVFOA_Ump]

Can't find any explanation or commentary on this but IMHO it's not a simple "minor editorial change".

[bossman72]

Rule 6-3-2-d in the new 2017 rule book is:

Illegal touching on a try, in extra periods, or in Team A’s end zone is ignored.

The part about tries and extra periods is marked as a change, but it is not considered a major editorial change (which would support the reading that team A would not score a TD in the OP)...

Ok.  So the rulebook we got from the CFO in print is not updated then.

[Rulesman]

Ok.  So the rulebook we got from the CFO in print is not updated then.

The online version is the most recent update.

[ElvisLives]

In the "Final" version of the 2017 Rules, the Code of Official's Signals is now Appendix E, and the Summary of Penalties has re-appeared as Appendix F. 
I was just about to ask everyone about when to use S38 in conjunction with other signals for personal fouls.  Many moons ago, it was used with just about every personal foul, but I knew that had changed back in the mid 2000s, I think.  I just happened to check the "Final" 2017 edition of the book and discovered these "updates."  The Summary of penalties shows when to use S38 with other signals.
Curiously, it says to use it with roughing the kicker, but not with roughing the passer.  Seems odd, but, OK.

Robert

[HoustonUmp]

If you didn't use the signal on roughing the kicker, how would you differentiate between roughing and running into?

[TxSkyBolt]

I sent a note to George Demetrious and this was his response:

Hey George,

Hope all is well with you. I have a question on an editorial change to the
2017 rule book that really is a rule change IMO.

Rule 6-3-2-d in the new 2017 rule book is: "Illegal touching on a try, in extra periods, or in Team A's end zone is ignored"

So in this play:

Try B18. (The penalty for a Team A unsportsmanlike foul after the touchdown has been enforced on the try). A7's kick is blocked and rolls beyond the neutral zone. A76 muffs the ball on B's 2. B56 then muffs the ball on B's 1.
The ball rolls into B's end zone where A64 recovers the ball.

So on this play we'd have:  A76 muff on the try, illegal touching - is ignored per 2017 editorial change, and the ball remains loose until recovered by A64 in the EZ.  2 point TD on the try.

I cannot understand why this change was instituted. Can you see if this was the intent of the editorial change?

Thanks and best regards,

Brad

//////////////////////////////////////////
Hi Brad,

I am well and glad to see you are still at it. I will reconcile this with Rogers, but you are saying is not the intent. It does need to be worded differently. That is not a TD.

All that was intended was to say that because it was a try B cannot take the ball at the IT spot.

Thanks,

George

[ElvisLives]

If you didn't use the signal on roughing the kicker, how would you differentiate between roughing and running into?

That's the reason, alright.  Thanks.
Robert

[NVFOA_Ump]

All that was intended was to say that because it was a try B cannot take the ball at the IT spot.

Unintended consequences!  That makes sense now, but the wording needs to be fixed to actually say that.  Actually, we already know that the play is over so maybe if it wasn't broken we shouldn't have tried to fix it?

[Kalle]

Unintended consequences!  That makes sense now, but the wording needs to be fixed to actually say that.  Actually, we already know that the play is over so maybe if it wasn't broken we shouldn't have tried to fix it?

I can understand the reasoning to clarify the rule so that nobody would think that B could next snap from the IT spot on tries and in overtime, but the wording should be something like: Illegal touching in team A's end zone is ignored. Illegal touching during tries and in overtime does not give team B an option to next snap from that spot.

[TxJim]

Do I have this correct?

Score 38-35 in favor of Team B in the 2nd possession series of the 2nd OT period. On fourth down, Team A’s field goal attempt is blocked at the LOS and is tumbling forward. A78 muffs the ball at the B-2 and then the ball strikes B21’s ankle and goes into the end zone where A78 falls upon it. 

Ruling:  Touchdown for Team A, A wins 41-38.

[Kalle]

Do I have this correct?

Score 38-35 in favor of Team B in the 2nd possession series of the 2nd OT period. On fourth down, Team A’s field goal attempt is blocked at the LOS and is tumbling forward. A78 muffs the ball at the B-2 and then the ball strikes B21’s ankle and goes into the end zone where A78 falls upon it. 

Ruling:  Touchdown for Team A, A wins 41-38.

Literal reading of the rule: yes.

Intent, it seems: no.

[TxSkyBolt]

Reply:
Hi Brad,

I had several exchanges with Rogers on this and he recognizes the flaw, but until someone comes up with a better way of saying it, it won't change.
""ignore" doesn't mean totally ignore; it just means to ignore where the ball is next put in play.

Thanks,

George

[Morningrise]

Wording proposal:

6-3-2-a ... This is illegal touching, a violation that, when the ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team the privilege of:

1. Taking the ball at the spot of the violation, except than on a try or in extra periods, or

2. On a try or in an extra period, canceling any score and ending the try or the extra period.

...

6-3-2-d. Illegal touching in Team A's end zone is ignored.

6-3-2-e. Forced touching (Rule 6-3-4) is disregarded.*


* I'm not sure it's even necessary to mention forced touching as an exception to illegal touching - I think it's understood. The equivalent rule for free kicks, 6-1-3, does not mention forced touching by Team A, but we still understand that forced touching is disregarded

[TxSkyBolt]

Wording proposal:

6-3-2-a ... This is illegal touching, a violation that, when the ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team the privilege of:

1. Taking the ball at the spot of the violation, except than on a try or in extra periods, or

2. On a try or in an extra period, canceling any score and ending the try or the extra period.

...

6-3-2-d. Illegal touching in Team A's end zone is ignored.

6-3-2-e. Forced touching (Rule 6-3-4) is disregarded.*


* I'm not sure it's even necessary to mention forced touching as an exception to illegal touching - I think it's understood. The equivalent rule for free kicks, 6-1-3, does not mention forced touching by Team A, but we still understand that forced touching is disregarded

Good but it won't do any good to post it here....you'll have to send it to SS.

[Rulesman]

Good but it won't do any good to post it here....you'll have to send it to SS.

... along with your reasons/rationale for making a change.