Recent Posts

1

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by dammitbobby on March 14, 2025, 02:02:19 PM »

Very valid point - I adjusted the language. Thank you!

2

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by peterparsons on March 14, 2025, 01:43:01 PM »

B. The touching by B50 is ignored. Action by B18 is a muff and results in this scrimmage kick play being treated basically as a punt. All PSK criteria are met so enforce the holding foul with the basic spot at B-8. Foul occurred beyond the basic spot so enforce from the basic spot.

None of the above. Batting by B54 is legal but could add new impetus. Even though the ball does become dead in team B end zone, the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble, so there is no score for either team. Team B 1/10 at B-5.
(see below for the correct analysis)

I'd debate whether B18's act is just a muff given the definition of kicking in 2-16-1-a (intentionally striking the ball with the knee, lower leg or foot) with the way the question is currently worded.

The question uses the word "strike" and does not make it clear as to whether the act was deliberate or accidental (and, for me, a strike of any kind is a deliberate act), and if the words from the definition of an act are used, there is an argument that the wording is intended to lead you to the conclusion that the ball was kicked by B18 while loose (otherwise why use the exact word from the definition), which would be a foul for illegally kicking a loose ball, enforced half the distance from the spot of the foul since that is a better option for A.

If the intention is that B18's act was accidental, I would strongly recommend replacing "strike" with something else. It's pretty damn difficult to strike a loose ball with your foot accidentally.

3

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by ElvisLives on March 14, 2025, 11:34:35 AM »

Fortunately the A.R. spells out that it only resolves the conflict between safety and 4th down fumble rule, so it absolutely does not apply on other downs than 4th downs and tries (both before a team COP).

If the logic is that impetus is from B54's legal batting, and the ball is dead in possession of a player (a player of either team, as the rules are written) on/above/beyond the B's goal line, then the result should be a safety, regardless of the down.

But, that can't possibly be the intent. Try this:
1/10, A-5. Ball carrier A44 is at the A-5 when he fumbles. The ball falls to the ground at the A-4, and bounces toward A's goal line. The ball bounces/rolls into A's end zone where it is recovered by B99.
Let's see... The status of the ball was a fumble, and the fumble was by A44. The ball traveled into A's end zone from the fumble, and a player recovered the ball in A's end zone, where it became dead. Well, since impetus is from Team A's fumble, then the ruling should be a - safety - 2 points for Team A.

You'd be lynched.

The rule language needs to be edited to specify that when the ball is in possession of a defending team player on/above/behind the defending team's goal line, and the impetus is by the defending team, then that's a safety. If the ball is in possession of an attacking team player on/above/beyond the defending team's goal line, that's a touchdown. Period. OK, the 4th down/try fumble rule could cancel the score and return the ball to the spot of the fumble, but there is no way this should be ruled a safety.
Impetus is irrelevant in this case. Impetus only applies when there is a question of safety or touchback. I don't see where Shaw gets a safety out of this. (AR appeared in 2021). Such a rare circumstance, I guess most of us never vetted that AR, at the time.

This needs to be addressed. How do you get a safety out of this, when you don't on any other down? If he wants this specific circumstance to result in a safety, then change the 4th down/try fumble rule to support the AR, as an exception (to the exception).   

4

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by Kalle on March 14, 2025, 10:33:30 AM »

That's the intent, to show how we handle/process really complex plays in a very limited timespan, and that officiating is actually really, really hard to do well.

Yeah, the second play situation is really annoying as you have to remember a very specific A.R., otherwise you have about a 50-50 chance of guessing the right alternative (without the A.R. you can easily argue for either a safety or returning to the spot of the fumble) for a very rare situation.

5

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by dammitbobby on March 14, 2025, 10:29:20 AM »

Everything looks good. Great way to pick plays for non-officials that confuse the crap out of us half the time.

Question number 2 the answer is D. The legal bat is impetus from Team B for the ball being in their end zone. Due to the fourth down fumble rule the ball is dead where recovered, which is in the end zone. Therefore it is a safety.

I wish it was consistent with the fourth down fumble rule returning to the spot of the fumble, since A seems to gain an advantage on an otherwise legal play.

That's the intent, to show how we handle/process really complex plays in a very limited timespan, and that officiating is actually really, really hard to do well.

6

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by Kalle on March 14, 2025, 10:04:14 AM »

But, if it is meant to apply to 1st thru 3rd downs, or when the fumbler recovers, then Team A is getting screwed out of a touchdown, and Team B is getting hung with a safety unfairly. I am going to assume (dangerous, I know) that this AR only applies to 4th downs (and tries).

Fortunately the A.R. spells out that it only resolves the conflict between safety and 4th down fumble rule, so it absolutely does not apply on other downs than 4th downs and tries (both before a team COP).

7

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by ElvisLives on March 14, 2025, 09:46:08 AM »

Grh, I missed A.R. 8-5-1-XI.

So did I. The big problem with this interpretation is that it must ONLY apply to 4th downs (and tries), and when the ball is recovered by a non-fumbler. If that's the case, I guess I can understand it.
But, if it is meant to apply to 1st thru 3rd downs, or when the fumbler recovers, then Team A is getting screwed out of a touchdown, and Team B is getting hung with a safety unfairly. I am going to assume (dangerous, I know) that this AR only applies to 4th downs (and tries).

Horrible interpretation.

8

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by Kalle on March 14, 2025, 08:38:16 AM »

Grh, I missed A.R. 8-5-1-XI.

9

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by Whodatboy18 on March 14, 2025, 07:59:10 AM »

Everything looks good. Great way to pick plays for non-officials that confuse the crap out of us half the time.

Question number 2 the answer is D. The legal bat is impetus from Team B for the ball being in their end zone. Due to the fourth down fumble rule the ball is dead where recovered, which is in the end zone. Therefore it is a safety.

I wish it was consistent with the fourth down fumble rule returning to the spot of the fumble, since A seems to gain an advantage on an otherwise legal play.

10

NCAA Discussion / Re: couple of plays

« Last post by Kalle on March 14, 2025, 01:56:05 AM »

B. The touching by B50 is ignored. Action by B18 is a muff and results in this scrimmage kick play being treated basically as a punt. All PSK criteria are met so enforce the holding foul with the basic spot at B-8. Foul occurred beyond the basic spot so enforce from the basic spot.

None of the above. Batting by B54 is legal but could add new impetus. Even though the ball does become dead in team B end zone, the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble, so there is no score for either team. Team B 1/10 at B-5.
(see below for the correct analysis)