RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: sczeebra on December 14, 2021, 01:05:55 PM
-
Here is one of our questions in SC regarding force. I need some help with this one.
B41 intercepts a pass in his end zone. He starts to run but fumbles while still in the end zone. A2 attempts to catch the fumble at B's 2 yard line but muffs it back into the end zone where the ball contacts the ground and B3 recovers it. Ruling???
-
You leaving out just a little to the imagination on your question.
Did A2 attempt to catch an "airborne fumble" or a "grounded fumble"? Since you said "catch" I assume you meant "airborne fumble" but we all know what happens when you assume!
Restated, did the ball touch the ground at anytime prior to A2's muff?
-
i think it's got to be a touchback in anyway you cut it.
-
Yeah our test writers left a lot to the imagination. I'm just giving it out verbatim. I assumed the writer by saying catch meant that it had not been grounded yet so let's go with that.
-
Yeah our test writers left a lot to the imagination. I'm just giving it out verbatim. I assumed the writer by saying catch meant that it had not been grounded yet so let's go with that.
I was curious if this was an incomplete test question?
I agree with Touchback and here is why:
A was responsible for putting the ball into the end zone (both times), the ball never touched the ground until after the muff by A2 so...
I am going to say your test writers are hanging their hat around Rules 8-5-1, 8-5-1a and 8-5-3d
They also hung their hat on 8-5-3c not being applicable.
That's the thinking from the left coast
-
It’s a safety, if the wording of the question was catch, the ball was in flight per definition of catch. A new force can’t be applied to a ball on flight. The reason the ball was in the EZ by rules of force was B’s force from the fumble. There is the note about force only applies in one direction I.e from the field of play into the EZ. If my memory serves me this play went up to Mr Colgate a few years back and he came back with safety.
If it’s grounded it’s easy a TB.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I may not be awake yet but, IMHO, A put the ball into B's end zone, B hadn't got the ball out of their EZ when they fumbled, they then recovered the fumble back in their EZ = touchback.
IMHO,IF B had gotten out of their EZ and an airborne fumble was muffed by A and recovered by B back in their EZ = safety.
IMHO, if A had caught B's airborne fumble, it would be called an interception. If B's big ole' Bubba was the fumbler, he would have a very low passer rating.
IMHO, it will be a Pats/Buc super bowl. Huntin' dawg has done her morning business, time to go back to bed yEs:.
-
Have to go with Ralph here. The Rule 2 definition of force is clear and the original force that put the ball into the EZ, A's forward pass, is still the "force of record" by definition.
A new force cannot be from EZ back into the the field of play: 2.13.1 - ..... The term force is used only in connection with the goal line and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end zone., so B's fumble is not considered a new force.
And then, although superfluous in this case: 2.13.3 - The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not considered a new force.
-
A word of caution to any of you who are also working NCAA football: This is VERY different in NCAA. Due to the potential of a score, you need to know the difference.
“And that’s all I have to say about that.” B. Gump
-
Yes I agree with all of that, what I am saying is I recall this play was interpreted by Mr Colgate and he interpreted safety.
I don’t necessarily agree, but the ball was moving from the field of play into the EZ. It can’t be A’s force that put the ball into the EZ as the ball was out, so how did it get back in….B’s fumble. I will try to dig through old emails because I think I saved the email with the interpretation.
EDIT...I have found the email from the federation. I will redact certain information, like peoples names and emails and post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
The ball came out of the endzone, then back in...
"A2 attempts to catch the fumble at B's 2 yard line but muffs it back into the end zone..."
-
Yes I agree with all of that, what I am saying is I recall this play was interpreted by Mr Colgate and he interpreted safety.
I don’t necessarily agree, but the ball was moving from the field of play into the EZ. It can’t be A’s force that put the ball into the EZ as the ball was out, so how did it get back in….B’s fumble. I will try to dig through old emails because I think I saved the email with the interpretation.
EDIT...I have found the email from the federation. I will redact certain information, like peoples names and emails and post.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I agree with PABJNR. Since the ball leaves the end zone, A cannot be responsible for putting it back into the end zone. B's fumble is responsible. Safety.
-
Have to go with Ralph here. The Rule 2 definition of force is clear and the original force that put the ball into the EZ, A's forward pass, is still the "force of record" by definition.
A new force cannot be from EZ back into the the field of play: 2.13.1 - ..... The term force is used only in connection with the goal line and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end zone., so B's fumble is not considered a new force.
And then, although superfluous in this case: 2.13.3 - The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not considered a new force.
Sorry, i meant to post my reply here:
The ball came out of the endzone, then back in...
"A2 attempts to catch the fumble at B's 2 yard line but muffs it back into the end zone..."
-
As promised email chain regarding this play (or a play very similar) and Bob Colgate's interpretation. This is back in 2013, but the applicable rules remain the same. It took a while to find as I remembered this discussion occurring around 17 or 18......time flies.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Not sure how an old email fits into the picture here to fix the apparent and still current wording problem in rules (based on said email) but I would defer to Ralph as to how this would/should be handled for NFHS. What say you Ralph? :bOW
-
If, since we agree FORCE is only a factor in one direction from the field of play into the end zone,
How can FORCE be a factor on a fumble from the End Zone back into the End Zone?
I believe I'm hanging my hat on Touchback
-
If, since we agree FORCE is only a factor in one direction from the field of play into the end zone,
How can FORCE be a factor on a fumble from the End Zone back into the End Zone?
I believe I'm hanging my hat on Touchback
Except for the fact the ball left the end zone and then went back into the end zone. Since a new force cannot be added to a fumble in flight, the initial force of B trumps. So technically B brought the ball out and forced it back in. By rule, that’s a safety.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
By rule that is incorrect, since the clear text of the applicable rule says otherwise. Force as defined can only be changed in the field of play. We've had this discussion in the past and the rule has not been changed.
-
Answer these questions.
1. Did the ball come out of the end zone?
2. If so, who caused it to come out?
3. Did the ball go back into the end zone?
4. Was force a factor?
5. Based on the answer to 4, whose responsible for the ball going back into the end zone?
6. Did the ball become dead after going back into the end zone?
7. Who was in possession?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
If we are going to ask questions, How about these two questions?
1) Was a forward pass intercepted in B's end zone?
2) Did the ball become dead in B's end zone with B in possession?
Then why wouldn't this rule apply?
8-5-3d...It is a touchback when... A forward pass is intercepted in B's end zone and becomes dead there in B's possession.
-
I've got a far simpler question. What does rule 2 explicitly say? I've got no problem with the real issue here, it's the rules that do. If you want our rules to be the same as NCAA then I'm good with that, just change the rules. And although a moot point IMHO, how did the ball get back into the EZ? Oh, sorry the rules say that since the ball did not hit the ground, it wasn't A that put it there? Really? And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
-
If we are going to ask questions, How about these two questions?
1) Was a forward pass intercepted in B's end zone?
2) Did the ball become dead in B's end zone with B in possession?
Then why wouldn't this rule apply?
8-5-3d...It is a touchback when... A forward pass is intercepted in B's end zone and becomes dead there in B's possession.
Because the ball came out of the end zone and then went back in.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
IMHO,IF B had gotten out of their EZ and an airborne fumble was muffed by A and recovered by B back in their EZ = safety.
Isn’t this what happened? A muffed an airborne fumble. AT THE TWO!
"A2 attempts to catch the fumble at B's 2 yard line but muffs it back into the end zone..."
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
I've got a far simpler question. What does rule 2 explicitly say? I've got no problem with the real issue here, it's the rules that do. If you want our rules to be the same as NCAA then I'm good with that, just change the rules. And although a moot point IMHO, how did the ball get back into the EZ? Oh, sorry the rules say that since the ball did not hit the ground, it wasn't A that put it there? Really? And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.
Yes, really. Consider this play:
A drops back to pass in his own end zone. He throws the ball and B jumps up and bats it at the two. The ball rebounds back into the end zone where it’s caught by A and he is tackled there. Isn’t that a safety?
Yes. Even though B supplied the energy that put the ball back into the ez, a new FORCE can’t be added to a pass in flight, so BY RULE in this case, A is responsible for the ball coming back into the ez, even though he provided the energy to send it out.
Now, in the play in question, the same thing has happened. A is initially responsible for putting the ball into the ez. If it stayed in there and became dead in B,s possession, it would be a touchback. But, because the ball came out of the end zone in flight, B is responsible for it coming out. Because it was muffed by A in flight back into the end zone, BY RULE, B is responsible for the ball being back into the end zone. Because it became dead in his possession and he’s responsible for it being there, it’s a safety.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yes, really. Consider this play:
A drops back to pass in his own end zone. He throws the ball and B jumps up and bats it at the two. The ball rebounds back into the end zone where it’s caught by A and he is tackled there. Isn’t that a safety?
Yes. Even though B supplied the energy that put the ball back into the ez, a new FORCE can’t be added to a pass in flight, so BY RULE in this case, A is responsible for the ball coming back into the ez, even though he provided the energy to send it out.
But doesn't that overlook the most important part? Who, A or B, is responsible for the original force that put the ball in the EZ? In the original case play it was team A putting the ball into B's EZ, in this play it is team A putting the ball into their own EZ, so I'm good with touchback in the original play and safety in this play. IMHO they both correctly track the applicable rules.
Ralph, are you back in with the dog yet? I'm just back in with mine and he's unhappy that it's pouring rain here. Any additional wisdom here? hEaDbAnG
-
But doesn't that overlook the most important part? Who, A or B, is responsible for the original force that put the ball in the EZ? In the original case play it was team A putting the ball into B's EZ, in this play it is team A putting the ball into their own EZ, so I'm good with touchback in the original play and safety in this play. IMHO they both correctly track the applicable rules.
Ralph, are you back in with the dog yet? I'm just back in with mine and he's unhappy that it's pouring rain here. Any additional wisdom here? hEaDbAnG
Once the ball comes out of the end zone, the original reason why it was in there is null and void. If it goes in and stays in, then yes, who put it there is important. Once it comes out, then it’s a complete reset, and we need to know who put it back in.
In this case, because A cannot add new force to a fumble in flight, the responsibility for the ball going back into the end zone is on B.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
But doesn't that overlook the most important part? Who, A or B, is responsible for the original force that put the ball in the EZ? In the original case play it was team A putting the ball into B's EZ, in this play it is team A putting the ball into their own EZ, so I'm good with touchback in the original play and safety in this play. IMHO they both correctly track the applicable rules.
Ralph, are you back in with the dog yet? I'm just back in with mine and he's unhappy that it's pouring rain here. Any additional wisdom here? hEaDbAnG
*note: the similarities in the two plays ends with the “no new force” illustration. I only posted this example to show that we don’t attribute a new force to a ball in flight.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
So my understanding of the issue here was presented to us when we were transitioning to NFHS rules a couple of years ago went something like this:
1. A new force can only be generated by the team in possession and control of the ball
2. A new force can only be generated in the field of play, not from the EZ
3. The original force remains until a new force meeting 1 & 2 above replaces it.
Given those criteria and what appears to me to be the clear wording in the rules that reconcile with those criteria I'll stick with the original case play as a touchback until a rule change or a clear on point case play is added to the NFHS rule set. The 10 year old email IMHO highlighted the issue here pretty clearly but without some sort of official follow-up rules guidance I would think that that email's advice has expired.
-
But doesn't that overlook the most important part? Who, A or B, is responsible for the original force that put the ball in the EZ? In the original case play it was team A putting the ball into B's EZ, in this play it is team A putting the ball into their own EZ, so I'm good with touchback in the original play and safety in this play. IMHO they both correctly track the applicable rules.
Ralph, are you back in with the dog yet? I'm just back in with mine and he's unhappy that it's pouring rain here. Any additional wisdom here? hEaDbAnG
When it rains in the Commonwealth, it snows in the Pine Tree State. My dawg likes it ..I don't. Bob Colgate is our fearless leader, so his interp is official. If it happened in real life, my knee-jerk reaction would be touchback . This is a play that we can find rule support from both sides, Bob Colgate provided the official interpretation, so that's the rule.
-
When it rains in the Commonwealth, it snows in the Pine Tree State. My dawg likes it ..I don't. Bob Colgate is our fearless leader, so his interp is official. If it happened in real life, my knee-jerk reaction would be touchback . This is a play that we can find rule support from both sides, Bob Colgate provided the official interpretation, so that's the rule.
" ....This is a play that we can find rule support from both sides ...." So wouldn't the "normal" procedure here be to either revise the applicable rule(s) and/or add an on-point case play the following year (excuse my comparison here) similar to what the NCAA does? That way we could all be aware of the guidance from above.
-
" ....This is a play that we can find rule support from both sides ...." So wouldn't the "normal" procedure here be to either revise the applicable rule(s) and/or add an on-point case play the following year (excuse my comparison here) similar to what the NCAA does? That way we could all be aware of the guidance from above.
IMHO ,this would make a very good case play, as evidenced here. Case plays are drawn up by the Editorial Committee. With printing limitations, when a new case is added a case - often still valid - needs to be removed so our case book doesn't grow to the size of the NYC phone book New cases usually pop up to add support/ clarification to a new rule.
-
IMHO ,this would make a very good case play, as evidenced here. Case plays are drawn up by the Editorial Committee. With printing limitations, when a new case is added a case - often still valid - needs to be removed so our case book doesn't grow to the size of the NYC phone book New cases usually pop up to add support/ clarification to a new rule.
So maybe this is one of those "test questions" that most of us will never see that doesn't rise to the priority level justifying a case play? I guess that makes sense.
-
when a new case is added a case - often still valid - needs to be removed so our case book doesn't grow to the size of the NYC phone book New cases usually pop up to add support/ clarification to a new rule.
Then the Federation needs to enter the 21st century and issue a more detailed digital format case book and can still play around with the smaller book format for the dwindling amount of officials that can't handle a newer format.
-
Perhaps the view taken on the official interp was : IF B intercepted the ball in his own end zone, brought the ball out to the 2, didn't like what he saw and returned to his end zone and was downed. That would be clearly a safety. In the OP, the ball came out of the end zone sans player. :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
-
Perhaps the view taken on the official interp was : IF B intercepted the ball in his own end zone, brought the ball out to the 2, didn't like what he saw and returned to his end zone and was downed. That would be clearly a safety. In the OP, the ball came out of the end zone sans player. :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR: :sTiR:
Yes, but consider this. In determining application of the momentum exception, one stipulation is that to be afforded mo, the ball must stay in the ez. Ball comes out, player or no, mo is gone. Wouldn’t the same philosophy apply in this situation to decide tb/safety?
If the ball comes out, there is a player attached to the reason why it came out, even though there may not be a player physically attached to the ball.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
Yes, but consider this. In determining application of the momentum exception, one stipulation is that to be afforded mo, the ball must stay in the ez. Ball comes out, player or no, mo is gone. Wouldn’t the same philosophy apply in this situation to decide tb/safety?
If the ball comes out, there is a player attached to the reason why it came out, even though there may not be a player physically attached to the ball.
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Agreed, where the pass was intercepted in the end zone mo' would not be applied. The ball dead in the end zone means it has to be either a touchback or safety. Consider this :
(1) B picks off pass in end zone;
(2) B fumbles and ball bounces out of end zone;
(3) Ball bounces off A's big ole' Bubba's backside -while he was ogling the prom queen - at B's 2;
(4) ball then bounces untouched off of pylon.
Even though it may not seem right, it too, would be a safety as Bubba's backside isn't considered a muff.
[/AS LUKE SKYWALKER SAID TO SOMEBODY/ SOMETHING.....
LET THE FORCE BE WITH YOU !!b]
-
Regarding the Case Book. I feel that it would be helpful for the editorial committee to "change-up" the plays from year to year. I think that the officials that refer to the case plays frequently would be likely to keep several years worth at a time. It is then easy to thumb thru the sections you are looking for in several books of different years. Less repetition from year to year and a broader range of plays in a relatively short span of time. I have all of the case books from the early 70's to now (didn't keep the ones from my first few years).
For the interception play in question: My take on it is --- B is in team possession in the their own end zone, but team A put it there. B's fumble is cause of the ball coming out of their end zone in flight. B is still in team possession when the ball is in the field of play. A muffs the ball back into the end zone. The batting or muffing of the ball in flight is not a new force. Therefore team B is responsible (this time) for the ball going from the field of play into their own end zone.
I glad this one did not happen in my game -- who knows what thoughts would have prevailed in the moment.
-
have been reading and re-reading this thread with interest.
5-2-a. "It is a safety when: A runner carries the ball from the field of play to or across his own goal line and it becomes dead there in his team's possession" Think Jim Marshall recovering a fumble and running the wrong way and upon crossing his own goal line he tosses the ball into the stands or player from team A gets tackled and downed with the ball in their possession in their own end zone.
5-2-b. "It is a safety when: A player who is either in the field of play or in his own end zone, forces a loose ball from the field of play to or across his own goal line by his kick, pass, fumble, snap or by a new force to a grounded loose ball with his muff or bat or illegal kick (when the penalty is declined), provided the ball becomes dead there in his team's possession (including when the ball is declared dead with no player in possession), or the ball is out of bounds when it becomes dead on or behind their own goal line"
it is interesting that 5-2-a states A RUNNER but 5-2-b states A PLAYER. I take it to mean that in 5-2-b 'A Player' is one of the 22 team members who are on the field at the time of the play. So in the case play provided did any of the 'players' force a loose ball from the field of play to or across his own goal line?
No they did not. A "player' forced a ball to or across his opponents goal line but not his own.
I'm thinking therefore it is a touchback because it cannot be a safety.
-
8-5-2b...It is a safety when a player who is in his end zone, forces a loose ball from the field of play across his goal line by his fumble provided the ball becomes dead there in his teams possession.
Don't really like the result, but, by rule, the result of the play is a safety.
-
8-5-2b...It is a safety when a player who is in his end zone, forces a loose ball from the field of play across his goal line by his fumble provided the ball becomes dead there in his teams possession.
Don't really like the result, but, by rule, the result of the play is a safety.
how can a player who is in his own end zone force a loose ball from the field of play across his own goal line?
-
how can a player who is in his own end zone force a loose ball from the field of play across his own goal line?
Only by the play in the OP.
A player (airborne) fumbles the ball from his EZ into the Field of Play, it then bounces off an opponent in the FOP and returns to the EZ without ever touching the ground.
By definition, the fumble was the force that put the ball into the EZ, because, by definition, a muff can not supply a new force to a non-grounded fumble.
Right, wrong, or indifferent, by definition, the result of this water bucket play is a safety!
-
hypothecial question: Ball is at A1 going out and runner fumbles the ball at the A2...
1: ball is grounded and B muffs ball back into endzone where A recovers. Touchback?
2: ball pops up and deflects back into the endzone where A catches it (before it hits the ground) but then is tackled in the end zone. Safety?
This seems as bad as the rule that says you fumble and the ball goes out of bounds at the 1 yard line you still have the ball but the ball goes through and out of the end zone it is a touchback.
These difference in these outcomes are huge based upon the luck of the bounce of the ball.
-
hypothecial question: Ball is at A1 going out and runner fumbles the ball at the A2...
1: ball is grounded and B muffs ball back into endzone where A recovers. Touchback?
2: ball pops up and deflects back into the endzone where A catches it (before it hits the ground) but then is tackled in the end zone. Safety?
This seems as bad as the rule that says you fumble and the ball goes out of bounds at the 1 yard line you still have the ball but the ball goes through and out of the end zone it is a touchback.
I agree, Derek, that the results doesn't always seem fair BUT it has to be something. While we probably all agree that a blocked airborne punt near the goal line that goes OOB in the end zone untouched is a safety BUT a botched fair catch at K's 15 that bounces untouched off of a pylon should be one.
Several years ago I watching a state championship game from our state association's press box. Next door was B's ,rather voicetress, radio crew. A's ball @ A's 2. A fumbles @ LOS . Ball bounces AWAY from A's goal line. B tries to scoop up ball on run and muffs it into A's EZ. A recovers for touchback.
RADIO ANNOUNCER : "THAT WAS AN AUFUL CALL >:( >:(, IT SHOULDA' BEEN A SAFETY >:( !"
STATE REP: " Here's our 'rules guy' ; he can explain 8] " and pushed me around the corner.
ME: " When the ball comes dead in the end zone, it has to be one of three things: (1) If your team had recovered, it would be a touchdown but they didn't. (2) We then need to decide who caused the ball to go in the end zone ??? ; your player tried to scoop it up , but muffed it into the end zone. If he had fell on the ball at the five it would have been you ball, goal to goal, but by causing the ball to go into the end zone and recovered by the offense, it becomes a touchback. 8] ."
RADIO ANNOUNCER : "SO THERE YOU HAVE IT, WE WERED SCREWED BY AN AUFUL RULE >:( :( hEaDbAnG :puke: !".
pi1eOn :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: :puke: pi1eOn (A SAMPLING OF B'S FANS)
NOTE: It was AM radio, not FM, so I didn't get into IF the fumble was bouncing Toward A's end zone OR the mo' rule/ tiphat:
-
that's a funny story, Ralph. I'm trying to square with the current rules vs what the intentions are. I received that book "How Football Became Football" and its really good. The author say that in the beginning years of the game there were no points for safeties. Safeties became a way for teams that were ahead to stall by going backwards (because there were no first downs) and ultimately take a safety so they could kick off from their own 25 yard line.
To avoid this rule makers added downs to force movement forward or exchanges and eventually awarded 2 points to the opponents of a team who took a safety but also added that the team that took the safety could kick to their opponent from their own 20 yard OR KEEP THE BALL and begin a new series of downs at their own 30.
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that most teams took the ball. It was a loophole that teams could use if they were winning but pinned deep in their own territory. Rather than punt from their own 5 they would concede 2 points and keep the ball at their own 30.
The rule eventually changed into what it is now and that is the choice to kick or keep after a safety was eliminated and the teams were forced to kick the ball away.
So safeties were initially used by offensive teams to their advantage so rules to make a safety more of a disadvantage were added and today teams rarely take a safety on purpose although New England did just that against the Broncos a few years ago and Belichek's bold move paid off and the Patriots won!
In the case play provided nobody is trying to use a loophole or a safety to their advantage. After intercepting the ball, team B is being penalized by recovering their own fumble in their own endzone because team A put the ball there with their pass play.
BUT once team B possesses the ball that loose ball pass play ends correct? A new play begins and the runner elects to start running out of his own endzone. So I think we have to block out the interception part and look at the play starting from when the defender decides to run.
I seem to remember a rule somewhere that if a player intercepts a pass in the endzone and doesn't take a knee and he starts to run and is tackled in the endzone it is a safety. Was this NFL and does anybody else remember that?
-
I remember a lot of things that I don't need to remember, but I don't remember that in NFHS. The only change I recall was the addition of Mo' Rule back in 1982. Prior to that if a B/R player caught an airborne kick or intercept a forward pass inside their 5 yard line, stumbled and fell into the end zone it would be a safety, UNLESS,you felt the force of the ball drove the defender in= touchback. Many ;) officials ;) chose that route.
It didn't seem fair to rule it a safety. ::)
Neither did it seem fair to rule it a touchback ::).
Hence, the momentum rule was born. tiphat:
Initially , the mo' rule covered airborne kicks and interceptions but was later expanded to fumbles, backward passes and the like. If a defender attempts to advance the ball after gaining possession and is brought down in the EZ the mo' still applies or touchback, if not. If the runner leaves the EZ and doesn't like what he sees and returns back in and is brought down=safety. If after COP, if B fouls in his EZ = safety under all-but-one.
-
From the NFHS handbook
* Beginning in 1883, a safety scored 2-points and has continued the same to this day. Before 1883 a safety was worth Zero.
* Beginning in 1883, a touchdown was worth 4 points, a Goal from the Field was worth 5 points, and a Goal after Touchdown was worth 4
- 2021-22 NFHS Handbook Pages 13 and 14
-
From the NFHS handbook
* Beginning in 1883, a safety scored 2-points and has continued the same to this day. Before 1883 a safety was worth Zero.
* Beginning in 1883, a touchdown was worth 4 points, a Goal from the Field was worth 5 points, and a Goal after Touchdown was worth 4
- 2021-22 NFHS Handbook Pages 13 and 14
I believe it was in 1883 that General Custer went to visit some Native-Americans . Chet "the Jet" Arthur was our president. Some felt he may have been born in Canada. Some may have been right. Five days until the NFHS Football Rules Committee meeting. The BOSTON Patriots next play in seven months.
^good ^no ^TD ^good ^good pi1eOn
-
June 25, 1876 was the date George Armstrong Custer's wife Elizabeth (Libbie) Bacon Custer
selected an ARROW shirt for George to wear to work that day.
And the rest is history...
Also in 1876 - The American Intercollegiate Football Association was formed.