91
NCAA Discussion / Re: Curiously written rule (Replay)
« Last post by dammitbobby on May 01, 2024, 09:49:55 AM »Thanks gents, those responses answer my questions perfectly.
Recent Posts
92
NCAA Discussion / Re: Curiously written rule (Replay)
« Last post by Legacy Zebra on May 01, 2024, 09:16:23 AM »The answer is in the sentence you ignored. A kick is one type of loose ball, but not the only type. If they wanted it limited to just the kick it would only say kick. Remember that a player who goes out of bounds during a kick play may not return during the entire down, no matter what happens after the kick.
4/10 @ A-20. Team A punts. During the kick, A88 goes out of bounds on his own. While A88 is out of bounds, B1 catches the punt at the 50, is hit at the A-45 and fumbles. While the ball is loose, A88 returns inbounds and recovers the fumble while grounded at the A-40. The on-field officials do not flag A88 and award Team A possession.
Because A88 touched a loose ball after illegally returning inbounds, that foul is reviewable. If A88 had not touched the ball it would not be reviewable.
4/10 @ A-20. Team A punts. During the kick, A88 goes out of bounds on his own. While A88 is out of bounds, B1 catches the punt at the 50, is hit at the A-45 and fumbles. While the ball is loose, A88 returns inbounds and recovers the fumble while grounded at the A-40. The on-field officials do not flag A88 and award Team A possession.
Because A88 touched a loose ball after illegally returning inbounds, that foul is reviewable. If A88 had not touched the ball it would not be reviewable.
93
NCAA Discussion / Re: Curiously written rule (Replay)
« Last post by ElvisLives on May 01, 2024, 09:04:32 AM »So I've looked and looked and I can't find an answer to this question.
'A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who has been out of bounds and returned inbounds during the kick.'
Let's say that during this play, the kick ends, the returner fumbles, and the player who went OOB (foul) recovers the ball. This specific provision only addresses situations where the play status is a kick (not going to list loose ball here because as Elvis pointed out, they're the same thing).
Does that prohibition end as the play status transitions to a running play? Or am I missing a sentence buried somewhere that extends this out to all touching and recovery during the down?
The rule under discussion is a Replay rule. The actual rules are 6-1-11 (Free Kicks) and 6-3-12 (Scrimmage Kicks). Those rules apply to the entire down. So, when a Team A player is out of bounds on his own, if he returns inbounds any time during the remainder of the down, he has committed a foul for an ‘illegal return.’ The replay rule simply gives the RO the authority to include the ‘illegal return’ element in his review, if he is, first, looking to determine if a player touched a loose ball after he returns inbounds.
Note 4 things:
1) His touching of the ball is no different than any other Team A player touching the ball. If it has not yet reached/crossed Team B’s restraining line, or been touched by Team B, on a free kick, the touching is illegal. If it HAS reached/crossed Team B’s restraining line/been touched by Team B, on a free kick, the touching is legal. But that is true for ANY player of Team A, whether they have been OB or not.
2) A free kick play begins when the ball is kicked, and ends when the ball comes into player possession or otherwise becomes dead.
3) A scrimmage kick play begins when the ball is snapped, and ends when the ball comes into player possession or otherwise becomes dead.
4) The illegal return rule applies for the entire down, not just during the kick play portion of the down. That’s why we need understand the difference between a ‘play’ and a ‘down.’ A down may contain several plays. (When the CFO sends out “Play Situations,” they are actually sending out “Down Situations.” But, I’ll never convince them to change their informal terminology.)
The fact that touching of a loose ball, or blocking of an opponent, or tackling of a BC, by a player that has returned illegally is no different than any other player doing those things would make them unremarkable, IMHO, and should not be required ‘triggers’ for the RO to consider the possibility of an illegal return.
But I’m not in charge.
94
NCAA Discussion / Re: Curiously written rule (Replay)
« Last post by dammitbobby on May 01, 2024, 08:24:35 AM »So I've looked and looked and I can't find an answer to this question.
'A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who has been out of bounds and returned inbounds during the kick.'
Let's say that during this play, the kick ends, the returner fumbles, and the player who went OOB (foul) recovers the ball. This specific provision only addresses situations where the play status is a kick (not going to list loose ball here because as Elvis pointed out, they're the same thing).
Does that prohibition end as the play status transitions to a running play? Or am I missing a sentence buried somewhere that extends this out to all touching and recovery during the down?
'A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who has been out of bounds and returned inbounds during the kick.'
Let's say that during this play, the kick ends, the returner fumbles, and the player who went OOB (foul) recovers the ball. This specific provision only addresses situations where the play status is a kick (not going to list loose ball here because as Elvis pointed out, they're the same thing).
Does that prohibition end as the play status transitions to a running play? Or am I missing a sentence buried somewhere that extends this out to all touching and recovery during the down?
95
NCAA Discussion / Re: Curiously written rule (Replay)
« Last post by ElvisLives on April 30, 2024, 08:58:31 PM »The rule is written convolutedly because they combined what should have been two sentences into one.
The touching isn’t actually the foul being reviewed, the illegal return is. A player going out of bounds during a kick and then returning is not reviewable on its own. It is only reviewable if that player subsequently touches or recovers the ball. That touching or recovery could be the kick itself or any subsequent loose ball, such as the returner fumbling the ball. Basically, an illegal return is not “important” enough to be reviewable normally, but if that illegal return ends up affecting the ball it creates enough of an advantage to warrant a review.
They should have just written “f. A Team A player illegally returning inbounds after being out of bounds during a kick. (Only reviewable if the player touches or recovers the kick or subsequent loose ball).”
I don’t like that answer, but I believe it. It makes sense, in its own non-sensical way. But, yeah, they need to ask us to vet the rule language! 😉
96
NCAA Discussion / Re: Curiously written rule (Replay)
« Last post by Legacy Zebra on April 30, 2024, 07:25:03 PM »The rule is written convolutedly because they combined what should have been two sentences into one.
The touching isn’t actually the foul being reviewed, the illegal return is. A player going out of bounds during a kick and then returning is not reviewable on its own. It is only reviewable if that player subsequently touches or recovers the ball. That touching or recovery could be the kick itself or any subsequent loose ball, such as the returner fumbling the ball. Basically, an illegal return is not “important” enough to be reviewable normally, but if that illegal return ends up affecting the ball it creates enough of an advantage to warrant a review.
They should have just written “f. A Team A player illegally returning inbounds after being out of bounds during a kick. (Only reviewable if the player touches or recovers the kick or subsequent loose ball).”
The touching isn’t actually the foul being reviewed, the illegal return is. A player going out of bounds during a kick and then returning is not reviewable on its own. It is only reviewable if that player subsequently touches or recovers the ball. That touching or recovery could be the kick itself or any subsequent loose ball, such as the returner fumbling the ball. Basically, an illegal return is not “important” enough to be reviewable normally, but if that illegal return ends up affecting the ball it creates enough of an advantage to warrant a review.
They should have just written “f. A Team A player illegally returning inbounds after being out of bounds during a kick. (Only reviewable if the player touches or recovers the kick or subsequent loose ball).”
97
NCAA Discussion / Curiously written rule (Replay)
« Last post by ElvisLives on April 30, 2024, 03:48:25 PM »Rule 12
Reviewable Fouls
12-3-8-f. A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who has been out of bounds and returned inbounds during the kick.
OK. The only possible foul there is for an Illegal Return by a Team A player (not just any player) who went OB voluntarily and returned inbounds, or was blocked OB but didn’t return inbounds immediately. That has nothing to do with touching or recovery of the ball (during or after the kick). Such a player is not prohibited from touching/recovering the ball, blocking an opponent, or tackling/obstructing a ball carrier, any MORE (or less) than any of his teammates.
The replay rule mentions, “…kick or loose ball…” Uh, a kick IS a loose ball. Any other loose ball could only happen after the ball had been in player possession, ending the kick play. A Team A player recovering a kick would cause the ball to become dead. Recovering a fumble or loose backward pass (after the kick play ended) does not change live-ball status. So, what is “…or loose ball…” all about?
Reviewable Fouls
12-3-8-f. A player touching or recovering a kick or loose ball who has been out of bounds and returned inbounds during the kick.
OK. The only possible foul there is for an Illegal Return by a Team A player (not just any player) who went OB voluntarily and returned inbounds, or was blocked OB but didn’t return inbounds immediately. That has nothing to do with touching or recovery of the ball (during or after the kick). Such a player is not prohibited from touching/recovering the ball, blocking an opponent, or tackling/obstructing a ball carrier, any MORE (or less) than any of his teammates.
The replay rule mentions, “…kick or loose ball…” Uh, a kick IS a loose ball. Any other loose ball could only happen after the ball had been in player possession, ending the kick play. A Team A player recovering a kick would cause the ball to become dead. Recovering a fumble or loose backward pass (after the kick play ended) does not change live-ball status. So, what is “…or loose ball…” all about?
98
Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL
« Last post by Cosmokramer1 on April 30, 2024, 01:23:06 PM »Cosmokramer1, the old-new rule that I mentioned was back in 2018 when TASO pushed hard to fix back pad and knee pads but gave us a no leg to stand on to enforce, so the coaches pushed back harder and thus, we have the situation we have had for the past few years. Now with what appears to be an UIL enhanced proposal, the one ElvisLives stated, to combat the knee pads situation with actual penalties to enforce.
Thank you, and thank you Elvis (Robert). So my take on it now is no different than my take on it last year and the year before. Not being disrespectful to the UIL but when it comes to uniform rules (either theirs or the NCAA) I pretty much don't care anymore. Why you might ask? Because too many of us got burned by the UIL several years ago when they implemented rules associated with the uniform color and number color. The UIL (and TASO) informed officials to enforce the rule that numbers had to be of contrasting colors to the jersey. So many did only to then watch, that same year, three state championship games being played at AT&T having teams with what was considered illegal jersey/numbers. And UIL let them play without penalty.
I will certainly ask a player to cover his knee's or pull his jersey over his back pad, but I absolutely will not remove that player from the field or penalize them for not doing so. The UIL will tell us they support our enforcement but those actions come with consequences related to the coaches we work for (as Elvis previously mentioned) that counters UIL's supposed support. So I'm not doing it again!
99
Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL
« Last post by Etref on April 29, 2024, 07:59:25 PM »You can go back to the 90’s with the sock rule that lasted about a year then went away
100
Texas Topics / Re: PROP Approved Rules changes - now we wait for the UIL
« Last post by Zebra Watcher on April 29, 2024, 07:24:18 PM »Cosmokramer1, the old-new rule that I mentioned was back in 2018 when TASO pushed hard to fix back pad and knee pads but gave us a no leg to stand on to enforce, so the coaches pushed back harder and thus, we have the situation we have had for the past few years. Now with what appears to be an UIL enhanced proposal, the one ElvisLives stated, to combat the knee pads situation with actual penalties to enforce.