RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: younggun on January 29, 2014, 02:44:10 PM
-
With rules references please: 4/10 A88 is running toward the GL and lets go of the ball just short of the GL the ball rolls into the EZ, and stops, no player attempts to recover the ball after it comes to a stop. Ruling?
-
A ball at rest belongs to the fumbling team. A ball in possession in your opponents EZ is a TD.
7-2-5
At Rest
ARTICLE 5. When a backward pass or fumble comes to rest inbounds and no
player attempts to secure it, the ball becomes dead and belongs to the passing
or fumbling team at the dead-ball spot.
8-2-1-c (Touchdown)
c. A fumble or backward pass is recovered, caught, intercepted or awarded in
the opponent’s end zone
-
What about because it was 4th down? Does ball go back to spot of fumble?
-
Since no other Team A player caught or recovered the fumble, the fourth down fumble rule doesn't really come into play here. Great question though.
-
Regardless of the 4th down fumble rule, why are we not coming back to the spot of the fumble. The ball was not recovered, it became dead by rule because no player attempted to recover. Ball dead in advance of the fumble is returned to the spot of the fumble.
-
No, 7-2-5 says it belongs to the fumbling team at the dead-ball spot. 2-25-4 says the dead-ball spot is where the ball is declared dead. It was declared dead in Team B's end zone because that's where it came to rest. So the ball belongs to Team A in Team B's endzone, therefore it's a touchdown.
-
The reason the ball does not go back to the spot of the fumble is because the ball was not fumbled out of bounds. The ball only goes back to the spot of the fumble if it was fumbled out of bounds between the goal lines (7-2-4b).
The 4th down fumble rule was previously discussed so I won't go into that.
-
Here's an interesting contradiction: Rule 7-2-5 says when a fumble comes to rest and no one attempts to secure it, it is declared dead and belongs to the fumbling team at the dead ball spot, and 8-2-1-c says when a fumble is awarded in the end zone it's a TD. However, the replay casebook, play 125 says: " Fumble at a goal line: First and goal on the B-5. A22 runs to B’s goal line, loses the ball prior to it breaking the plane of the goal line, and the officials rule touchdown. The ball comes to rest in the end zone with no player attempting to recover it. Ruling: Reviewable play, regarding whether A22 scored a touchdown before he lost the ball. Reverse to no score, A 2-Goal on B-1. If the ball becomes dead in the end zone with no team possessing it, the ball is placed at the spot of the fumble. If the ball is dead in the field of play, the ball is placed at that spot (Rule 12-3-1-a and 12-3-3-d)."
-
I believe the difference is timing. In the play in question the ball crosses the goal line and no ruling is made until the ball comes to rest when it is then declared a TD.
In the replay casebook the touchdown is declared 1st and then the ball comes to rest. Basically you have an inadvertent whistle. the official incorrectly rules that the ball crosses the goal line and whistles and signals TD. After this the ball then comes to rest with no player trying to recover.
I believe we have 2 different situations.
-
So if it is 4th down do you award TD or bring back to spot of fumble? There is no definition of 'awarded fumble' the AR talks about and the 4th down fumble rule talks about that the ball has to be recovered by a Team A player. Well if I am going to award a fumble recovery as the AR said you just don't pick a player to award it to (why not the fumbler). So with that being said you still have to award the TD.
-
I find it interesting that 7-2-2-a, Exception 2 applies only to fumbles during a fourth down and before a change of possession. Given those specifics, one could argue that the intent of the “fourth down fumble forward rule” is to prevent Team A from acquiring a first down by employing a deliberate “what have we got to lose” tactic.
If the rules makers created a rule to prevent ill-gained first downs, it seems they most surely would want to do the same if the play ended in a Team A TD. After all, a touchdown is identical to a first down in that both occur as a result of possession of a dead ball beyond the line to gain.
Intent can trump literal wording.
-
A couple of things:
1. You will never see a ball dead in the end zone without players trying to recover it. This is a play where there is always a "mass of humanity" trying to recover the ball so the play is really one that will not occur.
2. If it occurs, it has to be treated the same as if it occurred in the field of play barring some rule or exception to the contrary. In the instant play, as demonstrated by the rule above (in a previous post), the ball belongs to the fumbling team at the point where the ball is dead or came to rest so it is a TD. Again in real life it will never happen but if it did, you would clearly have a TD.
3. Making up rules to discern "intent" is not a good idea. The rules are what they are. You can use intent to sort of "clarify" a rule, but you should not use it to totally make up rules. The question is where is the rules support that allows this play to be anything other than a TD. The best I can find is the replay casebook play mentioned above, and as I stated I do not believe the play mentioned in the casebook actually addresses the play in question.
-
this is why we gotta get it right when the money line is involved yEs:
-
A couple of things:
1. You will never see a ball dead in the end zone without players trying to recover it. This is a play where there is always a "mass of humanity" trying to recover the ball so the play is really one that will not occur.
2. If it occurs, it has to be treated the same as if it occurred in the field of play barring some rule or exception to the contrary. In the instant play, as demonstrated by the rule above (in a previous post), the ball belongs to the fumbling team at the point where the ball is dead or came to rest so it is a TD. Again in real life it will never happen but if it did, you would clearly have a TD.
3. Making up rules to discern "intent" is not a good idea. The rules are what they are. You can use intent to sort of "clarify" a rule, but you should not use it to totally make up rules. The question is where is the rules support that allows this play to be anything other than a TD. The best I can find is the replay casebook play mentioned above, and as I stated I do not believe the play mentioned in the casebook actually addresses the play in question.
It did happen in a game this past season. Was ruled TD but replay showed the player lost the ball before entering but because no one recovered it they were still awarded a td
-
If it is ruled a TD on the field and goes to replay the TD signal is treated like an IW. So the ball will go back to spot of fumble (Texas Tech v TCU) play. In my play the official does not signal TD and the ball rolls where it comes to rest. I know this is not very likely in today's game, but going back to my previous question, can you have the 4th down fumble rule on this play come into play?
-
As stated by Skybolt above and me on many occasions above. Your play is a TD.
A ball at rest belongs to the fumbling team. A ball in possession in your opponents EZ is a TD. The rules are clear on this.
7-2-5
At Rest
ARTICLE 5. When a backward pass or fumble comes to rest inbounds and no
player attempts to secure it, the ball becomes dead and belongs to the passing
or fumbling team at the dead-ball spot.
8-2-1-c (Touchdown)
c. A fumble or backward pass is recovered, caught, intercepted or awarded in
the opponent’s end zone
-
4th down fumble rule does not come into play because of 7-2-2:2. On fourth down before a change of team possession, when a Team A fumble is caught or recovered by a Team A player other than the fumbler, the ball is dead. If the catch or recovery is beyond the spot of the fumble, the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble. If the catch or recovery is behind the spot of the fumble, the ball remains at the spot of the catch or recovery.
I added the emphasis (bolding). The does not speak to the ball coming at rest so the rule does not apply in this case. To have it apply is a little nonsensical because it means that on third down the play would be a TD on 1st, 2nd and 3rd down but on 4th it would not. In my immediate previous post the rule in c. clearly says "awarded." If the rules committee wanted it to apply to "awarded" in this case, as well, they would have included that word in the 4th down fumble wording and as all can see that word is not included.
-
Thats what I thought too...
-
We should get RR's take on this one. I would be inclined to go with the idea that while the ball belongs to team A in the EZ, we have the functional equivalent of A recovering in the EZ and I would tend to treat it that way (effectively a 4th down fumble rule application). The rules change on 4th down fumbles was very clear that it was intended to prevent any advantage to team A by fumbling he ball forward on 4th down.
-
Difference is someone could purposely fumble on 4th down and gain an advantage in order to get a 1st down with no downside if B recovers. The risk is too great to purposefully fumble forward on any other down because if B recovers it will be their ball "pre-maturely".
In the end zone the number of down makes no difference as to risk level (risk is B recovers and ends up with a TB-if A fumbles on purpose). Personally, I do not think any A player would purposefully fumble into the EZ on 4th down or any other. I would welcome RR's take but I have thought this through pretty well.
-
As a matter of fact if you return the ball to the previous spot B gets a worst spot than if they would have recovered it (1 y.o. or so vs. 20). This just makes no sense to me.
-
Personally, I do not think any A player would purposefully fumble into the EZ on 4th down or any other.
I disagree. That's the very reason the rule was enacted. Someone, somewhere, tried.
-
You are really confusing me. The reason which rule was enacted?
Can you direct me to the rule that says, a forward fumble on 4th (or any other down) into the endzone should be brought back to the fumbling spot?
As you can see above, it seems to be that all of the rules support says that a ball at rest belongs (is awarded to the fumbling team).
What if this does not occur in the EZ what if A-24 (4th and 10 at A's 20) fumbles the ball on A's 29 and it rolls to A's 31 where it comes to rest and no player attempts to recover it (just as nonsensical as the original play). According to rule 7-2-2, since the opposing team did not catch or recover the fumble the ball becomes dead and belongs to the fumbling team (1st and 10 from A's 31). The word awarded is specifically absent from 7-2-2.
While in 8-2_1 (c), the TD definition, it specifically states that a ball "awarded" to A is a TD.
As you can see from the multitude of postings above the rules support seems to all go in the direction that this play is a TD. Please post specific rules support to the contrary.
Basically, a ball at rest belongs to the team that fumbled the ball.
-
The history of the 4th down fumble rule dates back quite awhile and it's clearly stated intent when it was adopted was to make sure that Team A could not benefit by "fumbling" the ball forward when it was obvious that the line to gain, or the endzone, was not going to be reached before the runner was down.
I would still say that RR would rule that while the dead ball "belonged to team A" at the end of the play, the spot should be at the spot of the fumble and based on not making the EZ while in possession of the ball, that it would be B's ball 1st & 10. I would agree that the way the actual text of the rules is written we could use an opinion from a higher level.
-
I would certainly defer to RR or to my Coordinator if they said this should be ruled a different way, but in the meantime...I would have to go with the rule as written.
As an aside this is a purely academic exercise which I do not mind in the off season as this play could never happen. I would have a hard time not laughing if 22 players were standing around looking at a ball at rest in the end zone, and not one person thought to jump on it. RR may not want to waste his time on such a ruling :)
-
What if this does not occur in the EZ what if A-24 (4th and 10 at A's 20) fumbles the ball on A's 29 and it rolls to A's 31 where it comes to rest and no player attempts to recover it (just as nonsensical as the original play).
Evidently, the rules makers did not see your play as "nonsensical". They created a rule passage to address the situation - see 7-2-5.
-
If the rules committee wanted it to apply to "awarded" in this case, as well, they would have included that word in the 4th down fumble wording and as all can see that word is not included.
Football rules are abundant and complex. It's very difficult to create new rules which address all relevant situations associated with the new rule. It may take a long time before an unforeseen omission comes to light.
-
I don't think it would be 22 players looking at it, but I could see this happening. As A2 approaches the goal line, he drops the ball before breaking the plane. Both teams think he scores, but the official was alert and doesn't signal or sound his whistle and the ball comes to rest in the endzone. When it becomes apparent that nobody is interested in recovering it, the official signals touchdown.
-
The history of the 4th down fumble rule dates back quite awhile and it's clearly stated intent when it was adopted was to make sure that Team A could not benefit by "fumbling" the ball forward when it was obvious that the line to gain, or the endzone, was not going to be reached before the runner was down.
What he said. :thumbup
-
The history of the 4th down fumble rule dates back quite awhile and it's clearly stated intent when it was adopted was to make sure that Team A could not benefit by "fumbling" the ball forward when it was obvious that the line to gain, or the endzone, was not going to be reached before the runner was down.
I would still say that RR would rule that while the dead ball "belonged to team A" at the end of the play, the spot should be at the spot of the fumble and based on not making the EZ while in possession of the ball, that it would be B's ball 1st & 10. I would agree that the way the actual text of the rules is written we could use an opinion from a higher level.
Just for context.
-
If they and everybody in the stadium thought it was a TD, they wouldn't fall on it.
-
If they and everybody in the stadium thought it was a TD, they wouldn't fall on it.
While the ball is on the ground ask one of the team A players to hand you the ball. ;D. If it's not 4th down ^TD
-
I don't like the way Johnponz insists it would never happen.
We saw something close this year, but the deep official signaled TD - so we had IW to fall back on.
Here in Germany (granted the quality of play is not what you would hope, but they also play NCAA with little kids who don't know the rules in Texas) it has happened, some of the officials in my association were working the game.
The runner gets caught from behind and the ball is knocked out at about the 15 - forwards into the endzone. ALL the players assumed it was a TB (or something, maybe they were just too tired after the long run), and NOBODY went towards the ball.
After a few seconds, there is really no choice but to blow it dead.
Please don't say it will never happen.
-
What he's saying is his scenario will likely never happen: dropped ball short of goal line, no TD signal, ball laying in end zone and nobody falling on it. That, you have to agree will likely
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I stand by my statement. I really think that the scenario as posted is very unlikely to occur (less than 1% chance).
If it does occur until I hear different from my Coordinator or RR, it is a TD.
-
Don't know if this helps but this appeared in NCAA Interps bulletin No. 3 in 2009:
4. Second and four at the B-30. Ball carrier A33 breaks free and races toward the Team B goal line. He drops the ball just inside the one-yard line and, thinking he has scored a touchdown, circles through the end zone and toward his team area. There is no touchdown signal by any official. The fumbled ball hits the ground just outside or just inside the goal line, rolls along the ground in the end zone, and is declared dead there when it comes to rest and no player attempts to recover it.
RULING: Touchdown. The ball belongs to the team last in possession at the dead-ball spot. By definition an awarded fumble in the opponent’s end zone is a touchdown. (7-2-5, 8-2-1-c)
-
Well, there ya go. Game, set and Match:)
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
Still does not end the 4th down debate.
-
how?
is it fumbled out of bounds? (7.2.4.b.1)
No?
so we don't return to the spot of the fumble.
Did someone else other than the fumbler catch or recover the ball. (7.2.2.a.2)
No?
so we don't return to the spot of the fumble.
The ball is at rest? Correct? (7.2.2.5)
No one is attempting to secure it?
the ball becomes dead is awarded to the fumbling team at the dead-ball spot. (note, there are no exceptions)
So the ball is awarded to the fumbling team in the opponent's end zone (8.2.1.c) you have a touchdown.
Don't make things harder than they are by reading things into what isn't there.
-
I get it, the problem is that this goes against the philosophy behind the 4th down fumble rule. The 4th down fumble rule is in the book to prevent Team A from gaining yardage and maybe a first down or TD by the ball being fumbled forward. I get what is written in black and white and this is a TD but I just feel it goes against the spirit of the 4th down fumble rule. I know there is a .001% chance of this play happening but it can happen (with regards to no player trying to jump on the loose ball).
-
The fourth down fumble rule is intended to prevent a ball carrier from benefiting by intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone hoping that a teammate will recover the loose ball in a last ditch, last chance effort to score. Should an opponent recover it, well, nothing ventured nothing gained.
For the ball at rest scenario to play out, the ball would have to be fumbled in such a fashion that no player of either team considers it to still be a live ball. It seems reasonable to presume this was not an event the rules committee intended the fourth down rule to cover.
Having said that, if RR declares that we should interpret a ball at rest on fourth down the same as we would treat a fourth down fumble then so be it. Until then, we will use the rules as written.
-
The fourth down fumble rule is intended to prevent a ball carrier from benefiting by intentionally fumbling the ball into the end zone hoping that a teammate will recover the loose ball in a last ditch, last chance effort to score. Should an opponent recover it, well, nothing ventured nothing gained.
For the ball at rest scenario to play out, the ball would have to be fumbled in such a fashion that no player of either team considers it to still be a live ball. It seems reasonable to presume this was not an event the rules committee intended the fourth down rule to cover.
Having said that, if RR declares that we should interpret a ball at rest on fourth down the same as we would treat a fourth down fumble then so be it. Until then, we will use the rules as written.
I agree. The Fourth Down Fumble Rule came in after the Dave Casper (Oakland Raider) play with the ball fumbled forward. That rule predates the 2009 NCAA interpretation shared above -- so I would think that answers the question.
-
The NCAA Interps bulletin No. 3 in 2009 really has no bearing on the question. Bulletins apply only to the specifics of the subject case play and this case play was regarding a 2nd down play. If it was intended to apply to all downs IMHO it would have been a 4th down play. That being said, I would still agree that a clarification from RR would be appreciated here.