RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => Classics => Topic started by: TXMike on October 26, 2010, 08:12:05 AM
-
Not much here except Play 8
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Well, that just takes care of THAT discussion....sorta. Still don't like it.
-
That play is run all of the time. What is the problem?
-
That WAS the problem...it was being run frequently and was counter to the rule. Rule says thee holder can have a knee down and not be down as long as there is a kicker who simulated making a kick or who was in position to make a kick. Too many times the kicker blasted off to the left or right, was in no way in piosition to make a kick, but the ball was continued to stay in play, even though holder had a knee down. This Bulletin (and I suspect a change to the rule for next year) says as long as there was a "kicker" at the snap, the holder can stay down, regardless of where the "kicker" moves to.
-
Ok....but here comes the trouble....as mentioned in another thread....when does a player become a "kicker" ... just because he's lined up in what is traditionally a "kicking" formation....deep behind the person to whom the ball is snapped in this traditional "kicking' formation....maybe he's just a deep running back in a strange looking formation.
This is play is going to be debated and debated until the cows come home. Rules makers would be better off having the rule enforced as it is currently written.
-
No question that Play#8 in 2010 Memo #4 is a clear rules change since the only requirement is that a player be in a position where he could kick the ball at the snap. No requirement that he really be a kicker or anything else, no requirement that he be "in a position to kick the ball" when the pass is thrown by the holder down on 1 knee. It says, I believe, that from now on the determination is based on the "static conditions" that exist at the snap.
-
That WAS the problem...it was being run frequently and was counter to the rule. Rule says thee holder can have a knee down and not be down as long as there is a kicker who simulated making a kick or who was in position to make a kick. Too many times the kicker blasted off to the left or right, was in no way in piosition to make a kick, but the ball was continued to stay in play, even though holder had a knee down. This Bulletin (and I suspect a change to the rule for next year) says as long as there was a "kicker" at the snap, the holder can stay down, regardless of where the "kicker" moves to.
I don't see where this is a rule change at all.
Nowhere does it say in 4-1-3b, "as long as there is a kicker...". As I stated in an earlier thread, having a player in position at the snap meets the spirit of the rule and the interpretation in this bulletin quite easily fits into the exact wording and is an excellent guideline based on common sense and spirit.
I will stipulate that is understandable that one could infer the "as long as" interpretation from the wording but it certainly isn't written as such.
-
The rule says the ball stays live as long as an offensive player has simulated a kick or an offensive player is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick. Once the "kicker" blasts off left or right, what "offensive player is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick"? Nobody. That is why the rule as written would require action to be stopped. The bulletin changes that
And this is right from RR own Study Guide:
If the holder rises, he may re-establish his position as a holder as long as 1 -there has not been a change of team possession; 2 - the ball is behind the NZ; and 3 - a teammate must be in position to kick.
-
I don't see where this is a rule change at all.
Nowhere does it say in 4-1-3b, "as long as there is a kicker...". As I stated in an earlier thread, having a player in position at the snap meets the spirit of the rule and the interpretation in this bulletin quite easily fits into the exact wording and is an excellent guideline based on common sense and spirit.
I will stipulate that is understandable that one could infer the "as long as" interpretation from the wording but it certainly isn't written as such.
Read the exception directly from 4.1.3.b: [Exception: The ball remains alive when an offensive player has simulated a kick or is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or advanced by rule]
The idea that the exception language could be read to start and end with the snap is a non-starter that simply does not reconcile with the simple wording. The rule exception says "remains alive ....." and gives 2 specific conditions that can be applied for the ball to remain alive, neither of which is a static "at the snap condition".
The new #8 case play now changes the exception to be based only on the conditions at the snap - that's a rule change.
-
The rule says the ball stays live as long as an offensive player has simulated a kick or an offensive player is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick. Once the "kicker" blasts off left or right, what "offensive player is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick"? Nobody.
Well, he could drop kick.
-
You are mixing things up grasshopper. The "dropkick" possibility affects how we handle the swinging gate scenarios. In this scenario of a holder being down or not, the drop kick potential is immaterial because the rule specifically talks about a PLACE KICK (i.e. a ball being held on teh ground for a kick)
-
Read the exception directly from 4.1.3.b: [Exception: The ball remains alive when an offensive player has simulated a kick or is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate. The ball may be kicked, passed or advanced by rule]
The idea that the exception language could be read to start and end with the snap is a non-starter that simply does not reconcile with the simple wording. The rule exception says "remains alive ....." and gives 2 specific conditions that can be applied for the ball to remain alive, neither of which is a static "at the snap condition".
The new #8 case play now changes the exception to be based only on the conditions at the snap - that's a rule change.
Ok...you like to play word games. The "simulated" part is irrelevant to this discussion, so let's take that out. Now we get:
"The ball remains alive when an offensive player is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate."
There is no "as long as" in that phrase. You both are replacing "when" with "as long as" to come up with your interpretation. Rogers feels that "when" is equal to, "at the snap". Either interpretation is valid. Rogers gets to decide and he, correctly, went with the one that is based on common sense.
May be a new interpretation, but not a rule change.
-
To quote Diablo "I'll wager my game fee" we see the rule changed/edited in the 2011 book to match this interp.
As I said earlier, this is from Redding's own study guide:
If the holder rises, he may re-establish his position as a holder as long as 1 -there has not been a change of team possession; 2 - the ball is behind the NZ; and 3 - a teammate must be in position to kick.
That is not my paraphrasing or interp, those are HIS words.
-
You are mixing things up grasshopper. The "dropkick" possibility affects how we handle the swinging gate scenarios. In this scenario of a holder being down or not, the drop kick potential is immaterial because the rule specifically talks about a PLACE KICK (i.e. a ball being held on teh ground for a kick)
You are adding things into 2-27 that are not there. "During a scrimmage-kick play, he remains the holder..."
-
2-27 is not applicable to the issue under discussion unless you want to say (as do many of us) that once tehre is nobody in postion to kick the ball being held by the holder that he is no longer the holder so must get off the ground). I still do not see any connectin between a drop kick and what we are talking about here (Rule 4)
-
To quote Diablo "I'll wager my game fee" we see the rule changed/edited in the 2011 book to match this interp.
As I said earlier, this is from Redding's own study guide:
If the holder rises, he may re-establish his position as a holder as long as 1 -there has not been a change of team possession; 2 - the ball is behind the NZ; and 3 - a teammate must be in position to kick.
That is not my paraphrasing or interp, those are HIS words.
I would also expect the wording to more exactly reflect the interpretation. There are probably hundreds of other examples of that throughout the book.
I think there is more than a subtle difference between the holder establishing his knee down at the snap and re-establishing after the snap.
-
There is no "as long as" in that phrase. You both are replacing "when" with "as long as" to come up with your interpretation. Rogers feels that "when" is equal to, "at the snap". Either interpretation is valid. Rogers gets to decide and he, correctly, went with the one that is based on common sense.
May be a new interpretation, but not a rule change.
It's definitely a rule change. Or at the very least an important verb change.
The word WHEN isn't important. The word IS is. (Not trying to start a Bill Clinton debate! ;))
existing rule:
"The ball remains alive when an offensive player is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate."
the recent memo in effect changes this to:
"The ball remains alive when an offensive player is OR HAS BEEN in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate."
-
Ok...you like to play word games. The "simulated" part is irrelevant to this discussion, so let's take that out. Now we get:
"The ball remains alive when an offensive player is in position to kick the ball held for a place kick by a teammate."
There is no "as long as" in that phrase. You both are replacing "when" with "as long as" to come up with your interpretation. Rogers feels that "when" is equal to, "at the snap". Either interpretation is valid. Rogers gets to decide and he, correctly, went with the one that is based on common sense.
May be a new interpretation, but not a rule change.
Again, we'll disagree. The "simulated kick"- and the "in position to kick the ball" wording has no logical purpose if the intent of the rule is an instant in time judgment (at the snap). Also, as TXMike points out RR's own guide very clearly states the requirements and he is the one who adds the effective "as long as" into the explanation. It's pretty clear that the rulemakers want a simple legal / not legal ruling here and the way that's been chosen to do it is in effect a mid-season rules change. I'll place a wager along with Diablo and Mike that there will be a rule change in 2011 that retroactively validates case play #8 in the current NCAA memo.
The "new interpretation" based on the current memo is without question directly opposite the long term explanation including the RR guidance that's been used for many years.
-
I like the ruling and am glad the ambiguity is now removed.
-
I could care less one way or the other, but to me, I think the rulebook is clear. I've always been taught, and I teach, not to read past the words on the page. If they meant 'at the snap', then they would have printed 'at the snap'. The only reason a holder, with his knee on the ground, would be allowed this exception is for a kick and no other reason. Next thing you know, there will be all these exceptions to a runner having his knee down and people crying that 'he could have made a kick!!!' (ok..small bridge I just jumped off there...but anyway)
To me, this debate will be settled next year when the book is printed....if the language is different, then what we just experienced is a rule change...if the language is the same, then a rules interpretation.
I know where I got my money (RR covering his SEC boys) ;D
-
I don't think the interpretation is an "at the snap" issue.
I think the interpretation is that the holder is not down for the entire duration that he is on the ground. He doesn't become down by rule just because the kicker has moved out of position; if he is an exception to the rule when he is first on the ground with the ball, he remains an exception until he gets up.
-
I don't think the interpretation is an "at the snap" issue.
I think the interpretation is that the holder is not down for the entire duration that he is on the ground. He doesn't become down by rule just because the kicker has moved out of position; if he is an exception to the rule when he is first on the ground with the ball, he remains an exception until he gets up.
So didn't you just say that the exception starts " ....... when he is first on the ground with the ball, he remains an exception until he gets up." So the rule has been simplified to eliminate the need for any real judgment call, it starts based on the formation alignment at the snap, and no longer requires a subsequent kick, a simulated kick, or a teammate in position to make a kick. That's a rule change no matter how you parse the words.
-
So when does the holder become down based on the current rule?
PLAY:
The holder bobbles the snap but is able to control it and place it on the ground to be kicked. B players blow by the line and grab him by the shoulder while he both has his knee on the ground and pitches it back to the potential kicker. The kicker runs around the end for a touchdown.
Ruling?
-
By the interp in this bulletin, ball stays live
-
The holder bobbles the snap but is able to control it and place it on the ground to be kicked. B players blow by the line and grab him by the shoulder while he both has his knee on the ground and pitches it back to the potential kicker. The kicker runs around the end for a touchdown.
Ruling?
IMO the new "memo Approved Ruling" makes no difference with this play. Since, the holder/runner's knee being down has always been part of the exception, something other than his knee needs to touch the ground for him to be ruled down. We've got a TD.
-
IMO the new "memo Approved Ruling" makes no difference with this play. Since, the holder/runner's knee being down has always been part of the exception, something other than his knee needs to touch the ground for him to be ruled down. We've got a TD.
I think we all agree that the holder is also a runner, right? Is his forward progress stopped when he has been grabbed by an opponent? If yes, then the ball is dead, right? If not, when is his forward progress stopped?
-
Since NCAA does not have an "in the grasp" rule, a player who is still able to legally pass the ball to a teammate cannot be considered as having "all his forward progress stopped".
Since the holder has his "knee exception", he cannot be ruled down until some other part of him touches the ground.
-
Since NCAA does not have an "in the grasp" rule, a player who is still able to legally pass the ball to a teammate cannot be considered as having "all his forward progress stopped".
Since the holder has his "knee exception", he cannot be ruled down until some other part of him touches the ground.
While I agree here, how is that reconciled with your other post that says a holder isn't a holder until a scrimmage kick is made?
Yes, the definition of a holder says "during a scrimmage kick play", and if there is no scrimmage kick, then by definition, there can be no scrimmage kick play. But only a HOLDER (which by definition requires a kick) gets the exception of his knee on the ground, which happens BEFORE the kick is made. So it seems we are granting exception rights retroactively.
And if there is never a kick, how was he able to have his knee on the ground with the ball?
Obviously, there is a bit of an incongruity here. We give a holder rights when there is a kicker IN A POSITION to make a kick, whether that kick is actually made or not.
-
We might be stretching it now, but I understand the point that is being made. All the interpretation says at this point is that this particular play is legal; until there is an additional interpretation covering a variety of different plays (including the one above), or the rule is specifically reworded, I feel uncomfortable with the 'what ifs'...but again, I understand the point that is trying to be made.
Having said that, the exception doesn't even use the word 'holder'...isn't that a bit odd? (Since we're dissecting words)
-
AB: see my answer in the other thread.
-
What is basically needed is one or more A.R.s clarifying the rule with regards to fake kicks. I don't think that a rewording of the rule as such is necessary.
-
Since NCAA does not have an "in the grasp" rule, a player who is still able to legally pass the ball to a teammate cannot be considered as having "all his forward progress stopped".
Since the holder has his "knee exception", he cannot be ruled down until some other part of him touches the ground.
The exception doesn't mention a knee, just that the ball is not dead if the player in possession who is touching the ground with any part of his body other his hand or foot is doing so while someone is in a position to kick. You can hold from a prone position, if you so desire.
So imagine this: 4/10 from the B40, A leads 44-40 with 1:00 remaining. A12 is the holder and A3 is in position to kick the ball. A12 takes the snap, and assumes a prone position. Team B players tackle/land on/touch A12, but he remains prone and does not lose control of the ball. When is the play dead? Can he run out the entire minute?
-
This is a play that has upset me countless times and I have had more than one argument with coaches about after blowing it dead. I have also posted regarding this stating that I believe this should be blown dead.
I agree that the memorandum does indeed constitute a rule change. Perhaps I am mistaken, but these NCAA memo's basically carry the same force as the Approved Rulings in the rule book...please correct me if I am wrong. I mean this in the spirit that the A.R.'s are not actually the rules but are example play situations/strange plays where the rules committee has "approved" the rulings they would like to see. Additionally, and, in my mind, most importantly, offer valuable insight to the intent of the rules. As I see it now, the NCAA memorandums/memorandi are the same as approved rulings without having actually gone through the rules committee. In this specific case, I expect that #8 from this memo will become an A.R.
As for this specific topic, at this time, I have seen enough evidence from the "powers" that they clearly intend for this play to be alive and I will accordingly no longer blow this dead until I receive further and convincing contrary information.
-
The exception doesn't mention a knee, just that the ball is not dead if the player in possession who is touching the ground with any part of his body other his hand or foot is doing so while someone is in a position to kick. You can hold from a prone position, if you so desire.
So imagine this: 4/10 from the B40, A leads 44-40 with 1:00 remaining. A12 is the holder and A3 is in position to kick the ball. A12 takes the snap, and assumes a prone position. Team B players tackle/land on/touch A12, but he remains prone and does not lose control of the ball. When is the play dead? Can he run out the entire minute?
You're right about the knee. The ball would remain live even if the holder was lying prone on the ground after recovering a bad snap. We obviously have to interpret "is in position to kick the ball" that the kicker won't be able to kick it once his teammate is buried by the defenders.
-
Perhaps I am mistaken, but these NCAA memo's basically carry the same force as the Approved Rulings in the rule book...please correct me if I am wrong.
Well, not exactly. NCAA play situation bulletin simply lists plays and rulings for those specific situations, whereas A.R's illustrate the spirit and the application of the rule. In theory, you should never extend a bulletin play ruling to cover anything else but the very specific circumstances in the play, but you can (slightly) extend an A.R ruling.
But you are right in that several bulletin plays have later become A.R's.
It would be nice to get either a bunch of A.R's to show us what is legal and what is not, or simply change the wording of the rule to allow the knee to be on the ground even after there is no apparent kicker, if the knee is down immediately after the snap from an obvious kicking formation.