"Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules

[JasonTX]

don't worry - it will never happen

Ha!  I've slept many nights since, but if memory serves me correct I recall you saying something like that before about another play situation we discussed on here and then it happened in a high profile game you once had.     That's why I like this board because of the "will never happen" discussions that we have and they end up happening.

[zebra99]

Ha!  I've slept many nights since, but if memory serves me correct I recall you saying something like that before about another play situation we discussed on here and then it happened in a high profile game you once had.    That's why I like this board because of the "will never happen" discussions that we have and they end up happening.

well, JasonTX, ..whatever did happen in that game, didn't really happen because it never happens and that's my version of whatever did or did not happen!  

[Andrew McCarthy]

Are you discounting 2011 7-2-4-b-1?

What if Team A carried the ball into their own EZ, then fumbled and the loose ball rolled into the field of play and OB at the A-2?  Would give the ball to Team A at the A-2?

In that case I think it should be a safety.   

[El Macman]

For those who may have started on the CFO test -- take a look at #28.  There's a "hidden" editorial change to the 7-3-2 Exception for ING that's worth noting in order to answer the question correctly.

BTW, I like how the changes are highlighted in the PDF version, but this change was not highlighted.  They're keeping us on our toes!   

Since the guard was the player that received the snap, and he was outside the tackle box, his grounding of the pass was legal. Had the QB received the snap, then fumbled, and then the guard threw such a pass, it would be intentional grounding.

[zebra99]

Since the guard was the player that received the snap, and he was outside the tackle box, his grounding of the pass was legal. Had the QB received the snap, then fumbled, and then the guard threw such a pass, it would be intentional grounding.

 I'll offer the contrary position for discussion that the guard did not receive the snap, he received a backward pass, because the snap ends when it leaves the snapper's hands.

Seems to me the intent of this editorial addition is not to allow players other than the QB to enjoy the relief of being able to get rid of a pass while under pressure  to avoid injury by having to hang in there.  I don't think this play falls under that type of "relief."

I know, the definition of when a snap ends doesn't help in answering the question of what about the QB who muffs the snap to the ground then gets it back and throws the pass.

I'm going with a ING on this play.  Didn't want to get a perfect score anyway.

[El Macman]

I'll offer the contrary position for discussion that the guard did not receive the snap, he received a backward pass, because the snap ends when it leaves the snapper's hands.

Seems to me the intent of this editorial addition is not to allow players other than the QB to enjoy the relief of being able to get rid of a pass while under pressure  to avoid injury by having to hang in there.  I don't think this play falls under that type of "relief."

I know, the definition of when a snap ends doesn't help in answering the question of what about the QB who muffs the snap to the ground then gets it back and throws the pass.

I'm going with a ING on this play.  Didn't want to get a perfect score anyway.

Which means we need a definition for receiving the snap. By your explanation, the QB in a 'shotgun' position would not be eligible to legally ground a pass. Hardly an 'outlandish' play these days, eh?

For what it is worth, in six-player football, the "receiver of the snap" may not advance the ball beyond the NZ. Although there is no definition for the "receiver of the snap," various official interpretations make it clear that such a player is the first Team A player to possess the ball after the snap. I totally agree with you that the primary practical intent of the new "editorial change" may be to extend the privilege of being able to legally ground the ball only to the team's QB, but that ain't what it says, yet. What? Will Team A have to designate their intended snap receiver prior to each play?

I don't see how anybody could ever get a perfect score.

[TXMike]

Does RR actually author this test (or even vett it)?  Obviously there are many small nuances to the rules and without such vetting we are left with the fact that the questions and answers may not be what RR has in mind in some nuanced scenarios.

[Diablo]

I'll offer the contrary position for discussion that the guard did not receive the snap, he received a backward pass, because the snap ends when it leaves the snapper's hands.

Seems to me the intent of this editorial addition is not to allow players other than the QB to enjoy the relief of being able to get rid of a pass while under pressure  to avoid injury by having to hang in there.  I don't think this play falls under that type of "relief."

I know, the definition of when a snap ends doesn't help in answering the question of what about the QB who muffs the snap to the ground then gets it back and throws the pass.

I think the definition of "snap" is a bit ambiguous.  Surprised?

Yes, 2-23-1-b states a snap ends when the ball leaves the snapper's hand.  But, 2-23-1-a defines a snap as, "Legally snapping the ball (a snap) is handing or passing it backward from its position on the ground  .... "  The latter clearly denotes that a snap can include a backward pass; hence, does not necessarily end when snap leaves the snapper's hands.

AR 2-23-1-I supports the concept that, if a snap becomes a backward pass, it does not end when it leaves the snapper's hands. 
"Fourth and goal on Team B’s five-yard line. A55’s legal snap is muffed
by A12 and (a) any player of Team A recovers and advances the ball into
the end zone, or (b) a player of Team B recovers and advances the ball.
RULING: The snap is a backward pass and may be advanced by any
player. (a) Touchdown. Since this is a backward pass and not a fumble
there is no restriction on a Team A player recovering and advancing the
ball. (b) Ball continues in play."

[Andrew McCarthy]

A quick search of the book shows that "receives" is used in the context of grasping a ball that has not yet been grounded, often times related to an airborne player attempting to catch a pass.

Question 28 has the guard recovering the ball, by definition, so in my opinion he has not "received" the snap.

Of course this would bring up the question of what happens if the shotgun snap rolls back to the QB who then rolls out and throws it into an area occupied by an eligible receiver- I think we wouldn't have IG in that case.

[Andrew McCarthy]

And, of course, the former AR 8-7-2-III is lost and gone. This was one of the very most important ARs in the book. It was the one that prevented the attacking team from getting a cheap safety because the defending team, after cartching or recovering a ball put into the defending team's end zone from the field of play by the attacking team, then fumbled the ball and the ball goes OB across the EZ sideline or end line. Even more importantly, it was the rock in the wall that keeps RR from making it a safety if B's fumble, in such a case, just happened to travel across the goal line and back into the end zone (no new impetus), where B recovers and is downed or the ball goes OB.
The former AR was in every rule book I ever had (38), and who knows how long it had been in place before that? Dave Nelson will be turning in his grave, and John Adams will be getting a nauseating feeling.

It will be wrong for the game to make these a safety.

Here is a play I sent RR last year...

2/6/B-16.  B44 intercepts a forward pass in B's EZ and fumbles while still in B's EZ.The ball rolls into the field of play.  The ball is muffed back into B's EZ by B45 at the B-4 and out of bounds.

And his response...

Safety.  By rule, the fumbling team is responsible for the ball being in its end zone on its return trip into the end zone, so the result is a safety.  There are those who want this to be a touchback, but I have not seen a justification for this based on the rules.  If you have one, I would be interested in seeing it.

[NVFOA_Ump]

And, of course, the former AR 8-7-2-III is lost and gone.

What was in the "old" AR 8-7-2-III that's not in the current AR 8-7-2-III?

"Old" AR 8-7-2-III. A Team B player catches a kick in his end zone, then fumbles and, in attempting to recover the ball, muffs it out of bounds behind his own goal line. RULING: Touchback (Rule 8-6-1-a).

"New"  AR 8-7-2-III. Team A punts. The ball is touched by Team B (no impetus added) and crosses Team B’s goal line. Then Team B falls on the ball or the ball goes out of bounds from the end zone. RULING: Touchback. The same ruling applies if a kick in flight strikes Team B or merely is deflected by an attempted catch. Team B may recover and advance, and it is a touchback if a Team B player is downed in the end zone or goes out of bounds behind the goal line (Rule 8-6-1-a).

[El Macman]

What was in the "old" AR 8-7-2-III that's not in the current AR 8-7-2-III?

"Old" AR 8-7-2-III. A Team B player catches a kick in his end zone, then fumbles and, in attempting to recover the ball, muffs it out of bounds behind his own goal line. RULING: Touchback (Rule 8-6-1-a).

"New"  AR 8-7-2-III. Team A punts. The ball is touched by Team B (no impetus added) and crosses Team B’s goal line. Then Team B falls on the ball or the ball goes out of bounds from the end zone. RULING: Touchback. The same ruling applies if a kick in flight strikes Team B or merely is deflected by an attempted catch. Team B may recover and advance, and it is a touchback if a Team B player is downed in the end zone or goes out of bounds behind the goal line (Rule 8-6-1-a).

The ball is touched in the field of play, then goes into the end zone. No mention of a fumble or other loss of possession (while in the end zone) by the defending team after they gain possession in the end zone (with impetus from the attacking team).

[alter mann]

Hidden change or mistake?

In 2010 failure to wear mandatory equipment was a violation (see 2009/2010 rule 1-4-6).
In 2011 only wearing of illegal equipment is a violation (see 2011/2012 rule 1-4-8).
The title of article 8 shows "Mandatory and Illegal Equipment Enforcement" but in the rule is nothing about mandatory equipment.

[Archie]

For the "hidden" change about allowing only the receiver of the snap to ground/throw the ball away...this is the subject of Question 28 on the CFO test.  FR-73 Rule 7-3-2-h exception

[Hawkeye]

This hidden change just came to my attention.

Blocking Below the Waist:

In RR's notes regarding BBW, he quoted the rule as follows:
Rule 9-1-6 (Replaces current 9-1-2-e)
Blocking Below the Waist
ARTICLE 6.
There shall be no blocking below the waist (Rule 2-3-2).
Exceptions:
1. Against the ball carrier.
2. Before a change of possession on scrimmage downs that do not include kicks, blocking below the waist is allowed as follows:
(a) Players of the offensive team who at the snap are
(1) on the line of scrimmage more than seven yards from the middle lineman of the offensive formation, or
(2) in the backfield outside the tackle box, or
(3) in motion,
may block below the waist only along a north-south line or toward the sideline adjacent to them at the snap.
(b) Players of the offensive team who at the snap are inside the tackle box or on the line of scrimmage inside the seven-yard limit may block below the waist.
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b) except against a Team A player in position to receive a backward pass.
PENALTY: Administer as a Personal Foul

However in the rulebook it looks like this:
Blocking Below the Waist
ARTICLE 6. There shall be no blocking below the waist (Rule 2-3-2) (A.R. 9-1-6-I-VII).
Exceptions:
1. Against the runner.
2. Before a change of possession on scrimmage downs that do not include kicks, blocking below the waist is allowed as follows:
(a) Players of the offensive team who at the snap are:
(1) On the line of scrimmage more than seven yards from the middle lineman of the offensive formation; or
(2) In the backfield with any part of the body outside the tackle box; or
(3) In motion;
may block below the waist only along a north-south line (Rule 2-12-9) or toward the sideline adjacent to them at the snap.
(b) Players of the offensive team who at the snap are completely inside the tackle box or on the line of scrimmage inside the seven-yard limit may block below the waist.
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b) except against a Team A player in position to receive a backward pass.

Note the parts highlighted above.  This is a change from the distinction between backfield players being unrestricted versus being restricted since the interpretation of being inside the tackle box was that any part of the body was inside the tackle box.  The 2011 wording makes it unambiguous that the backfield player must be completely inside the tackle box to be considered an unrestricted player for the purpose of BBW.

[El Macman]

Yeah, a bit of a hidden change, but not a big deal. It just tightens and further restricts BBW. Simply, if they ain't totally inside the tackle box, i.e., he has a leg or foot outside the TB, then he is considered outside the TB, and can only BBW N-S or toward his adjacent sideline. Formerly, we had to make the back totally outside the TB, to NOT be eligible to BBW toward the ball. Butnow that only have to have a foot, leg, etc. outside to be considerd outside the TB. OK by me.

[El Macman]

Anybody notice that ANY lineman can now have his shoulders "approximately parallel" to the NZ? Formerly, only eligible ends could be "approximately" (which was interpreted as up to 30 degree offset). Ineligibles had to be parallel. We've been fussing at O-tackles to square up for years. Now, they can get that hallf step back in the backfield. Eh?

[justaLJ]

Hawkeye's post on BBW got the wheels turning, and I wonder if further clarifications may be coming to address a possible conflict regarding backs in the tackle box but outside the normal tackle position (i.e a wing back). A player in that position last year could not legally BBW toward position of ball. 

Memo and rule references below.  Thoughts?

From 9/8/2009 Clarification of Blocking Zone and BBW memo:
“2. Backs at the snap positioned with the frame of their body completely outside the right or left side of the blocking zone or completely outside the frame of the body of the second lineman from the middle lineman of the offensive formation in either direction toward a sideline, or in motion at the snap, are prohibited from blocking below the waist toward the original position of the ball in or behind the neutral zone and within 10 yards beyond the neutral zone. The frame of the body does not include arms or legs extended sideways.”
(Bold-faced words are new language replacing “tackle box”)
 
From 2011 Rule Book:
9-1-6- Exp 2(b): Players of the offensive team who at the snap are completely inside the tackle box or on the line of scrimmage inside the seven-yard limit may block below the waist.

[El Macman]

Hawkeye's post on BBW got the wheels turning, and I wonder if further clarifications may be coming to address a possible conflict regarding backs in the tackle box but outside the normal tackle position (i.e a wing back). A player in that position last year could not legally BBW toward position of ball. 

The only clarification I see that might be needed is regarding arms & legs, for 2011. Does being "...completely..." inside the tackle mean with all body parts? But, considering 9-1-6 Exception 1-(a)-(2) describes a person in the backfield with "...any part of the body outside the tackle box...," I really don't think there is any ambiguity. You are either totally within the TB (all body parts) and legal, or not.

[justaLJ]

@El Macman,
agree completely that if a player is not completely inside the tackle box, he's considered outside the box.  However, a wing back in the position below (forgive the crude graphic!) could be outside the frame of the tackle with normal splits, but still inside the tackle box and therefore BBW in any direction based on current wording.  This was the same issue in 2009 when the tackle box verbiage was introduced, hence the 9/8/2009 memo.

Can't imagine the intent of the new rule would be to make a BBW that was illegal last year, legal this year, but based on the current language, a wing back in the position shown below can BBW in any direction.


X O O
         O

[El Macman]

@El Macman,
agree completely that if a player is not completely inside the tackle box, he's considered outside the box.  However, a wing back in the position below (forgive the crude graphic!) could be outside the frame of the tackle with normal splits, but still inside the tackle box and therefore BBW in any direction based on current wording.  This was the same issue in 2009 when the tackle box verbiage was introduced, hence the 9/8/2009 memo.

Can't imagine the intent of the new rule would be to make a BBW that was illegal last year, legal this year, but based on the current language, a wing back in the position shown below can BBW in any direction.


X O O
         O

I don't believe the frame of the tackle's body (or anybody's frame) is any longer a landmark. I don't even see that language in the rule, any longer. Only the tackle box. If he's totally inside the TB, he can BBW in any direction, anywhere (before a COP). Otherwise, he may only BBW N-S or toward his "adjacent" sideline.
I wish they'd come up with a better name than "tackle box," because, indeed, it conjures an image of something directly related to the "tackle" positions, when, in fact, it no longer does.

[justaLJ]

Yep, we need to 'unlearn' what we have come to know about this particular situation.  Heard from our conference rules guru, and the 2009 interpretation has been flushed.

So we are left with a BBW which was a foul last year, that will be a legal block this year.  Seems contrary to the player safety push from the commitee, but it is what it is.

Now the fun part - mechanics - how to determine that back is completely within the tackle box, and who's gonna be responsible?   

[El Macman]

Now the fun part - mechanics - how to determine that back is completely within the tackle box, and who's gonna be responsible?   

Logistically, not that difficult (on paper), but it it will be a team effort. The R will have to know who is in the tackle box. If the H or L throw on a BBW, they'll just need to communicate to find out where he came from. If he was in the tackle box at the snap, pick it up.

What we need is one of those tv-magic superimposed images of the tackle box on the field, for each down (that we can see). Wouldn't that make it easy? Modern combat aircraft pilots have all kinds of navigation and targeting imagery on their helmet mounted displays, that stay fixed on the navigation point or target, regardless of the pilot's body or head movement. That's what we need. Glasses with real-time imagery of the tackle box, blocking zone, and adjacent sideline relative to each player. Not in my lifetime, but it could happen.

[Dommer1]

El Macman, I hear Honig's will carry a cap with a HUD that does all this.

[El Macman]

El Macman, I hear Honig's will carry a cap with a HUD that does all this.

Could bring new meaning to the term, "HUD-dle."