test question

[ck4597]

If K’s blocked punt strikes the ground and is then forced into K’s end zone by R2 and recovered there by R3, it is a touchback.

sounds like  TD?  fundamentals?

[FLAHL]

Possession of a live ball in the opponent's EZ is always a touchdown.

[SCHSref]

If K’s blocked punt strikes the ground and is then forced into K’s end zone by R2 and recovered there by R3, it is a touchback.

sounds like  TD?  fundamentals?

Bottom line...who put it in there?  That helps determine what the call will be

[Curious]

Don't jump to conclusions!

CB 8.5.2C requires that the covering official must (paraphrase), "judge whether or not a NEW FORCE resulted from R's touch..and decide whether the original force (the kick) was such that the ball COULD HAVE gone into the EZ regardless of the muff.  If in doubt...rule the force was the kick = Safety.  If ruled R's force, = Touchback"

[prab]

If K’s blocked punt strikes the ground and is then forced into K’s end zone by R2 and recovered there by R3, it is a touchback.

This was question 71 on the 2015 NFHS Part 1 exam.  Our state requires all registered officials to complete the exam online and provides instantaneous scoring.  The correct answer is FALSE, confirmed by our state association. 


sounds like  TD?  fundamentals?

On the field, new force and touchback, ala Curious, might be a possibility, but new force is not mentioned in the question.  Can't be a safety if R recovers in K's end zone.  The correct answer to the test question is FALSE.

[HLinNC]

Absent information that indeed R provided a new force, it was still a kick, which means K provided the force that put it into their endzone and R possessed it there.

 

[Atlanta Blue]

Stop and think!

It doesn't matter whose force put the ball in the end zone!

R recovered a ball in K's end zone.  What possible difference does it make whose force put it there?

If K recovered the ball in K's end zone, then it matters.  But R recovered.

It's a touchdown!

[wvoref]

Stop and think!

It doesn't matter whose force put the ball in the end zone!

R recovered a ball in K's end zone.  What possible difference does it make whose force put it there?

It's a touchdown!

+1

[wvoref]

Change the question to K3 recovering and then we can start discussing force.

[wvoref]

And once more this strikes me as a question designed more to test how carefully you read the question rather than rules knowledge. I can't imagine any official who would screw this up if it occurs like this on the field. Of course I have been accused of not having much imagination.

[Curious]

Stop and think!

It doesn't matter whose force put the ball in the end zone!

R recovered a ball in K's end zone.  What possible difference does it make whose force put it there?

If K recovered the ball in K's end zone, then it matters.  But R recovered.

It's a touchdown!

Ooops! Misread the CB play - where K recovered   Duh!!!!!  

[bossman72]

Remember, force only matters for TOUCHBACK or SAFETY.  Force NEVER matters for Touchdown.  Possession of a live ball in the opponent's endzone is always a touchdown.

[VALJ]

And once more this strikes me as a question designed more to test how carefully you read the question rather than rules knowledge. I can't imagine any official who would screw this up if it occurs like this on the field. Of course I have been accused of not having much imagination.

Yep.  I hate the problems on the FED test like this.  Test what I know, not what I can read. 

[prosec34]

If K was the one recovering, it would seem that R's block can't be a new force but R's muff of the recovery could be.  Thus I'd call that a touchback.  But I could be wrong - I don't have my rulebook in front of me.

[wvoref]

If K was the one recovering, it would seem that R's block can't be a new force but R's muff of the recovery could be.  Thus I'd call that a touchback.  But I could be wrong - I don't have my rulebook in front of me.

That is the key.  You have to be certain the punt would not have reached K's endzone without R's muff forcing it into the endzone.  If you rule new force=touchback K's ball on 20, if you don't rule new force=safety.  But you want to be very certain before ruling new force, if there is any possibility the block alone would have sent ball into endzone you don't have a new force.

[bbeagle]

Possession of a live ball in the opponent's endzone is always a touchdown.

I know that this is a 'fundamental', but it's untrue. It should actually be:
A SINGLE PLAYER IN Possession of a live ball in the opponent's endzone is always a touchdown.

Play: Defense intercepts pass in opponent's end zone, thus possesses ball in opponent's end zone - it's NOT a touchdown if it's joint possession. It's a SAFETY.

2-4-3: A simultaneous catch or recovery is a catch or recovery in which there is joint possession of a live ball by opposing players who are inbounds.
7-5-4: If a forward pass is caught simultaneously by two opponents, the ball becomes dead and belongs to the passing team.

The fundamentals aren't always true. And it irks me that they don't rewrite the fundamentals to make them all true. Like, the one where 'no live ball foul causes the ball to become dead'. There's always word-trickery when someone is trying to prove this.

[Atlanta Blue]

I know that this is a 'fundamental', but it's untrue. It should actually be:
A SINGLE PLAYER IN Possession of a live ball in the opponent's endzone is always a touchdown.

Joint possession IS the same as single player possession, as the possession of a fumble belongs to the team last in possession, if a pass, to the passing team.  So it doesn't matter.  Even though it's "joint", it only belongs to one person.

Play: Defense intercepts pass in opponent's end zone, thus possesses ball in opponent's end zone - it's NOT a touchdown if it's joint possession. It's a SAFETY.

If the defense intercepts, 1) it's not joint possession by definition, 2) if he intercepts in the OPPONENT'S end zone, it IS a touchdown, but 3) you likely meant he intercepted in HIS end zone.  And that's a touchback, not a safety.


As for the 'no live ball foul causes the ball to become dead', that one has been violated by the new kickoff rule.  But it was true before.

[bbeagle]

Joint possession IS the same as single player possession, as the possession of a fumble belongs to the team last in possession, if a pass, to the passing team.  So it doesn't matter.  Even though it's "joint", it only belongs to one person.

If the defense intercepts, 1) it's not joint possession by definition, 2) if he intercepts in the OPPONENT'S end zone, it IS a touchdown, but 3) you likely meant he intercepted in HIS end zone.  And that's a touchback, not a safety.

I did not mean that he intercepted in HIS end zone. I meant that QB threw a ball from his OWN end zone that was 'intercepted/caught jointly' in the same end zone the pass was thrown from'.

Rule 2-4-3 says it's possible for 2 players to have possession at the same time.

There are TWO rules that govern what to do:
1) Fundamental: Touchdown for the 'interceptor'
2) 7-5-4: Simultaneous catch: possession to the passing team

Just being a devil's advocate.... why does 7-5-4 override a 'fundamental'?

[Atlanta Blue]

I did not mean that he intercepted in HIS end zone. I meant that QB threw a ball from his OWN end zone that was 'intercepted/caught jointly' in the same end zone the pass was thrown from'.

Rule 2-4-3 says it's possible for 2 players to have possession at the same time.

There are TWO rules that govern what to do:
1) Fundamental: Touchdown for the 'interceptor'
2) 7-5-4: Simultaneous catch: possession to the passing team

Just being a devil's advocate.... why does 7-5-4 override a 'fundamental'?

OK, now I see where you're going.  The problem with the original was you said the defense "intercepts".  No, they didn't.

In your play, A throws from his own end zone, and the ball is "jointly possessed" by an A and B player.  In that case, "B" did NOT have possession, A AND B had possession, and the ball belongs to A (you know that).  And yes, that would be a safety.

But "B" never possessed the ball in the opponent's end zone, "A AND B" did.  You can't parse the possession of B out of "joint possession".

[bbeagle]

In that case, "B" did NOT have possession, A AND B had possession, and the ball belongs to A (you know that).  And yes, that would be a safety.

But "B" never possessed the ball in the opponent's end zone, "A AND B" did.  You can't parse the possession of B out of "joint possession".

If A and B are swimming, it follows that B is swimming. The 'and' is unnecessary. It's TRUE, but WITHOUT the 'and', it's ALSO true. I don't understand your logic.

You choose not to interpret the fundamental the way it is written.

I get what the rule is 'intending' to mean, but it doesn't actually say that. This is what's hard being an official and understanding the rules. I can read the rulebook and understand what it's 'trying' to say, even though it doesn't actually 'say' that.

Now, I can read it the way you are, which is technically incorrect, and be fine. However, many times a rule interpreter comes up with an interpretation that is zany, and other officials go, 'ummm.. yeah... that's what the rulebook says, we have to enforce it that way!' For example, the old rulings that the defense can score on a try (even though nothing in the rulebook said they could), or someone who is out-of-bounds but jumps up in the air and bats the ball back in bounds is legal. Crap like that.

Why isn't the 'fundamental' interpreted the same way until there is a rule clarification, but other crap is interpreted wrongly, and fully supported by many officials?

[Atlanta Blue]

If A and B are swimming, it follows that B is swimming. The 'and' is unnecessary. It's TRUE, but WITHOUT the 'and', it's ALSO true. I don't understand your logic.

In your example, those are independent events.  In football, "joint or simultaneous possession" are not two independent events, it is one single event.  A does not have possession, B does not have possession, the joint entity of A AND B have possession.

My wife and I have both of our names on the deed to our house.  "I" don't own the house.  "She" does not own the house.  "She and I" own the house.  Neither of us can sell the house, BOTH of us have to sell it.

[FLAHL]

A number of things in the rule book are vague or less clear than we'd like them to be.  This isn't one of them.

2-34-1 “A ball in player possession is a live ball held or controlled by a ­player after it has been handed or snapped to him, or after he has caught or recovered it.”

2-4-3 “A simultaneous catch or recovery is a catch or recovery in which there is joint possession of a live ball by opposing players who are inbounds.”

[bkdow]

Joint possession is as rare as the big foot sightings.  Sometimes we think we see it but it is merely a mirage.

[Atlanta Blue]

Joint possession is as rare as the big foot sightings.  Sometimes we think we see it but it is merely a mirage.

I agree with you there!

[theunofficialofficial]

Just cause I enjoy a good stew.    Here a little extra fun.

Remember that after a ball is been kicked it belongs to the Receiving team. Thus if K kicks the ball it's blocked and it is jointly possessed in the end zone it's still a  as R is now the defact-o "owner" of the ball.

Right out of Redding Study Guide: Example 6-16:

Team K's punt is blocked, never crosses the neutral zone, and winds up back in Team K's end zone where opposing players simultaneously recover it. Ruling: By 5-1-3e, it is a touchdown for Team R.

My favorite part is the comment: "Be prepared for this one, because Team K's coach is sure to go ballistic."

Joint possession is as rare as the big foot sightings.  Sometimes we think we see it but it is merely a mirage.

They are rare, but I've had it more times then I've seen big foot. Typically only in passing where two players go up, two players come down and they are both wrapped around the ball.