RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: refjb on June 01, 2011, 08:56:31 PM
-
If we have a roughing the passer on a completed pass how is it enforced?
A has ball 1-10-A15. A12 throws a completed pass to A88 at the A25 and B85 hits A12 late and draws a flag. A88 fumbles the ball at the A30 and A recovers at the A20.
Where would we enforce this fouls from.
New enforcement as follows.
Roughing passer (Art. 4) – (S34) – 15 yards and a first down
from the dead ball spot when the dead ball spot is beyond the neutral zone and
there has been no change of team possession
I am confused where they say enforce from the dead ball spot.
-
Your play, as written, states that A recovers the fumbled ball. I presume this was intended to mean that the A player recovered the loose ball while he was on the ground thus making the recovery spot a dead ball spot as well. It appears the NF has adjusted the enforcement to match the NCAA enforcement for RTP fouls. NCAA considers A's recovery while grounded to be a 'run'. NF does not consider this recovery a run, thus the necessary change of wording to end up with the same result as NCAA rules.
-
The dead ball spot is the A20. Under the old ruling the enforcement spot would have been the end of the last run which would have been the A30 where the bean bag should have been spotted.
-
Thanks guys! That is what Iwas thinking but I wanted to make sure.
-
It seems to me that there is enough video out there by now that we could find an example of each rule change to show how things are now different. (Show the clip once and indicate where the old enforcement spot was, then continue the clip to show what changed.) There's GOT to be a video of a Roughing penalty, caught pass, fumble, and recovery by A at a different yard line out there somewhere.
Interesting that while this seems at first glance to be a beneficial rule for A, we should remember that the fumble could travel towards A's goal line instead of towards B's goal line. In those cases, the old rule (enforced from the end of the run) would have benefited A more.
-
An excellent point to consider when reviewing any rule. Normally a rule discussion is generated and related to the result and action of a specific play or situation, where the intent of the rule is designed to equitably apply to a much broader set of related circumstances that each offer the potential of adding unique nuances.
-
The play described above says B hit A late, causing A to fumble. That cannot happen. If you remove the 'late' then the ruling is correct. If the hit was late, there would be no fumble and subsequent recovery. The DBPF would be enforced from the end of the run.
The new rule is a bit more confusing than the old version. But it does help A more now. As long as the pass was completed, and there was no COP during the down, RTP fouls would be enforced from the succeeding spot, not the end of the related run.
-
Fad,
There are a lot of things the Fed can and should do to enhance official's education. Updated and catalogued video would be great. i just don't think they have the staff to pull it off. Maybe their alliance with The Arbiter will give them some greater ability in the future.
-
The play described above says B hit A late, causing A to fumble. That cannot happen. If you remove the 'late' then the ruling is correct. If the hit was late, there would be no fumble and subsequent recovery. The DBPF would be enforced from the end of the run.
The new rule is a bit more confusing than the old version. But it does help A more now. As long as the pass was completed, and there was no COP during the down, RTP fouls would be enforced from the succeeding spot, not the end of the related run.
RickKY ... In the op, I believe the use of the word "late" was meant to describe the QB was hit after the pass was throne (RTP) and not to imply after the ball was dead. As officials, we frequently use the term "late hit on the QB" as opposed to the correct language of "Roughing the passer."
-
The play described above says B hit A late, causing A to fumble. That cannot happen. If you remove the 'late' then the ruling is correct. If the hit was late, there would be no fumble and subsequent recovery. The DBPF would be enforced from the end of the run.
The QB was hit late; as in after the pass was released. The receiver did not take a late hit.
-
I misread the play and responded too quickly. My apologies.
-
RickKY, don't lose that number.
;)
-
The dead ball spot is the A20. Under the old ruling the enforcement spot would have been the end of the last run which would have been the A30 where the bean bag should have been spotted.
Not necessarily true last year either. This was a common debate on whether the recovery was considered a "run". Many people thought it did so the enforcement was often from the succeeding spot. Others thought it was from the spot of the fumble in this scenario. The rules committee chose to clarify to support the camp who interpreted the previous rule as the spot of recovery. This simplifies what you have to consider when enforcing RTP penalties.
-
This was a common debate on whether the recovery was considered a "run".
Not where I work.
Why is the mechanic to beanbag the spot of the fumble then? They think we just wait for the recovery and go from there?
Did the debaters look up the definition of a runner?
-
...Interesting that while this seems at first glance to be a beneficial rule for A, we should remember that the fumble could travel towards A's goal line instead of towards B's goal line. In those cases, the old rule (enforced from the end of the run) would have benefited A more.
REPLY: Or a thornier issue. Suppose receiver is hit and fumbles at B's 8, and the ball rolls into and out of B's end zone. Now what? Last season, enforcement would have been from B's 8. This season, Fed says (in a revised case play), enforce from previous spot.
-
REPLY: Or a thornier issue. Suppose receiver is hit and fumbles at B's 8, and the ball rolls into and out of B's end zone. Now what? Last season, enforcement would have been from B's 8. This season, Fed says (in a revised case play), enforce from previous spot.
WOW - that is just a little tricky.
-
REPLY: Or a thornier issue. Suppose receiver is hit and fumbles at B's 8, and the ball rolls into and out of B's end zone. Now what? Last season, enforcement would have been from B's 8. This season, Fed says (in a revised case play), enforce from previous spot.
The ball out of the end zone is TREATED as a change of possession. I understand that the play itself is technically a not change of possession by rule, but for this rule, it is treated as a such. It makes sense - absent the penalty, B would be the next to put the ball in play, and that sure sounds like a change of possession!
-
The ball out of the end zone is TREATED as a change of possession. I understand that the play itself is technically a not change of possession by rule, but for this rule, it is treated as a such. It makes sense - absent the penalty, B would be the next to put the ball in play, and that sure sounds like a change of possession!
REPLY: You're correct that for RTP enforcement purposes, the TB is TREATED the same way as you would had there been a COP. You're equally correct that in the play there was no COP. A COP requires that a player of Team B must have had possession of the ball at some time. The "next entitled to put the ball in play" works for PSK enforcement, but is not really a part of RTP enforcment. I prefer to think of the Fed's thinking as, "We can't penalize from the dead ball spot, so let's go back to the previous spot.
If you remember a few years back the NCAA dealt with this same issue and went through a few years of 'push and pull' between Adams and the Rules Committee, before finally agreeing that there was no COP during the down and enforcing from the spot of the fumble.
-
If you remember a few years back the NCAA dealt with this same issue and went through a few years of 'push and pull' between Adams and the Rules Committee, before finally agreeing that there was no COP during the down and enforcing from the spot of the fumble.
IIRC, the point of contention then was "Don't fumble if you want the full effect of the penalty." Ultimately, the offense-minded (read "good for TV ratings") faction won out.
-
IIRC, the point of contention then was "Don't fumble if you want the full effect of the penalty." Ultimately, the offense-minded (read "good for TV ratings") faction won out.
REPLY: As I recall the Rules Committee wanted the penalty enforced from the spot of the fumble, and the rule said "...and there was no change of possession." Well, Adams looked at the play and said he felt that the TB constituted a change of possession, hence penalize from the previous spot. So, the following season the Rules Committee changed the rule to read "and there was no change of possession during the down" figuring that would nail it for them. Well, the esteemed Mr. Adams and said he felt that the TB was a COP during the down -- previous spot! Back to square one and I don't think it was ever cleared up until Mr. Adams retired.
-
REPLY: Or a thornier issue. Suppose receiver is hit and fumbles at B's 8, and the ball rolls into and out of B's end zone. Now what? Last season, enforcement would have been from B's 8. This season, Fed says (in a revised case play), enforce from previous spot.
Hey Bob, where can I find the revised case play you mention? Is it on the NF website?
-
I'm not Bob, but I know he is referring to the following in the 2011 Case Book:
*9.4.4 SITUATION C: 3rd down and 10 from B30. A1 passes to A2 who catches
ball at B20. B1 roughs A1 following the legal forward pass. A2 advances to B15
where he fumbles (a) backward and the ball is recovered by A3 at the B 20; (b)
forward and the ball is recovered by A3 at the B5; (c) forward and the ball is
recovered by B2 at the B5; (d) forward and the ball is recovered by A3 in the end
zone; (e) forward and the ball is recovered by B2 in B's end zone; (f) forward and
the ball rolls through and out of the end zone; or (g) backward and the ball is
recovered at the B31. RULING: In (a) the roughing penalty is enforced from the
B20, half the distance with first and goal for A at the B10; in (b) the roughing
penalty is enforced half the distance from the B5 yard line with first and goal for
A at the B 2 ½ yard line; in (c), (e), (f) and (g) the roughing penalty is enforced
from the B30 (previous spot) with first and 10 for A at the B15; in (d) touchdown
for A and A is given the choice of enforcing the roughing penalty on the try or on
the subsequent kickoff per 8-2-2.
-
Wow. A casebook scenario that actually covers ALL possible outcomes! Should we be concerned at this newfound lack of ambiguity?
>:D
-
I'm not Bob, but I know he is referring to the following in the 2011 Case Book:
*9.4.4 SITUATION C: 3rd down and 10 from B30. A1 passes to A2 who catches
ball at B20. B1 roughs A1 following the legal forward pass. A2 advances to B15
where he fumbles (a) backward and the ball is recovered by A3 at the B 20; (b)
forward and the ball is recovered by A3 at the B5; (c) forward and the ball is
recovered by B2 at the B5; (d) forward and the ball is recovered by A3 in the end
zone; (e) forward and the ball is recovered by B2 in B's end zone; (f) forward and
the ball rolls through and out of the end zone; or (g) backward and the ball is
recovered at the B31. RULING: In (a) the roughing penalty is enforced from the
B20, half the distance with first and goal for A at the B10; in (b) the roughing
penalty is enforced half the distance from the B5 yard line with first and goal for
A at the B 2 ½ yard line; in (c), (e), (f) and (g) the roughing penalty is enforced
from the B30 (previous spot) with first and 10 for A at the B15; in (d) touchdown
for A and A is given the choice of enforcing the roughing penalty on the try or on
the subsequent kickoff per 8-2-2.
REPLY: Actually, AB...it was scenario (f) that matched my play. Scenario (e) was always previous spot since there was clearly a COP on that play.
-
Right case, wrong highlight!
-
AB and Bob, thanks for the reference. I haven't gotten my books yet for next year.
-
If you are an NFHS member, they are available online. No waiting for those pesky summer meetings!
-
Right case, wrong highlight!
REPLY: Certainly the correct play ;), and isn't it refreshing to see the case play cover so many of the possible outcomes.
-
The NFHS made an unforced error with this rule change. I’m also surprised at how many knowledgeable officials misinterpret this one. The "end of the last run" doesn’t apply anymore, but the principle is important enough to discuss.
There is no difference between last year and this year when there is a recovery by a prone A player without a change of possession during the down.
A has ball 1-10-A15. A12 throws a completed pass to A88 at the A25 and B85 hits A12 late and draws a flag. A88 fumbles the ball at the A30 and A recovers at the A20.
The enforcement for this both in 2010 and 2011 is 15yds from the A20. The recovery spot by A20 is a run.
The recovery spot by a prone player is considered an “instantaneous run” according to the NFHS Reddings Guide (2010, p.48). I don’t think there’s much dispute over that. There is rule support for this too.
2-41-9 . . . The spot where a run ends is:
a. Where the ball becomes dead in the runner’s possession.
With this understood, the enforcement in the play above is clear. It’s the same before and after the rule.
Here is what the 2010 Reddings Guide says:
Example 5-34: On third down from Team A’s 39 yard line, A12 is roughed after throwing a complete pass A28, who runs for three yards to his own 42 yard line and fumbles. The ball (a) is recovered by prone A63, or (b) rolls out of bounds, at Team A’s 45 yard line. RULING: In (a), the penalty is enforced from Team A’s 45 yard line. First and 10 at Team B’s 40 yard line. In (b), the penalty is enforced from Team A’s 42 yard line. First and 10 at Team B’s 43 yard line.
It goes on to say “Notice the end of the last run in (a) is where the ball is finally advanced, Team A’s 45 yard line, not where A28 fumbled it, Team A’s 42 yard line. Among the definitions for the spot where the run ends (2-41-9) is the point where the ball is declared dead in player possession. A recovery by a probe player is an instantaneous run.”
I checked an old casebook and it wasn’t clear on this point.
Sadly the mistake of disregarding the recovery by a prone player has been made in publication. I checked the “Penalty Enforcements Made Easy” from 2009 and it says the enforcement is from the spot of the fumble. That’s incorrect.
It was wrong of the NFHS to make this change. It made an exception to an exception and confused things further. They should have clarified the original principle.
Here is where the new rule makes a change. If there is a fumble forward and out of bounds between the goal lines, A benefits by getting the penalty enforced from the dead ball spot. If it’s backwards and out of bounds (beyond the NZ), A loses the benefit of the last run.
-
The NFHS made an unforced error with this rule change. I’m also surprised at how many knowledgeable officials misinterpret this one. The "end of the last run" doesn’t apply anymore, but the principle is important enough to discuss.
There is no difference between last year and this year when there is a recovery by a prone A player without a change of possession during the down.
The enforcement for this both in 2010 and 2011 is 15yds from the A20. The recovery spot by A20 is a run.
The recovery spot by a prone player is considered an “instantaneous run” according to the NFHS Reddings Guide (2010, p.48). I don’t think there’s much dispute over that. There is rule support for this too.
2-41-9 . . . The spot where a run ends is:
a. Where the ball becomes dead in the runner’s possession.
With this understood, the enforcement in the play above is clear. It’s the same before and after the rule.
Here is what the 2010 Reddings Guide says:
It goes on to say
I checked an old casebook and it wasn’t clear on this point.
Sadly the mistake of disregarding the recovery by a prone player has been made in publication. I checked the “Penalty Enforcements Made Easy” from 2009 and it says the enforcement is from the spot of the fumble. That’s incorrect.
It was wrong of the NFHS to make this change. It made an exception to an exception and confused things further. They should have clarified the original principle.
Here is where the new rule makes a change. If there is a fumble forward and out of bounds between the goal lines, A benefits by getting the penalty enforced from the dead ball spot. If it’s backwards and out of bounds (beyond the NZ), A loses the benefit of the last run.
REPLY: Harry...I'm afraid you're mistaken about there not being any difference between 2010's and 2011's enforcement. There certainly is,and it is all predicated upon what has been the Fed's interpretation of what constitutes a "run" since this special enforcement for RTP was instituted. There is no definition for 'run,' and thus an interpretation is all we're left with. Here is a Federation Case Book play that appeared in all books up through 2007's that illustrates the Fed's interpretation:
9.4.4. Situation D: If passer A1 is roughed on a third down play from midfield, where is the penalty enforced from if A2 catches the pass at B's 40, but fumbles on B's 34 and A3 recovers at B's 30. RULING: The penalty is enforced from the end of the run, where A2 fumbled the ball. Following enforcement, it will be A's ball, first and 10 from B's 19-yard line.
Up through 2010, enforcement would have been from B's 34. Beginning now in 2011, enforcement will be from B's 30.
With all due respect, Mr. Redding is the NCAA Rules editor and in NCAA rules,A's prone recovery has always been interpreted as a run which begins and ends simultaneously. In NCAA, enforcement has always been from B's 30 for this play. Not so for Fed though.
-
Sadly the mistake of disregarding the recovery by a prone player has been made in publication.
Sadly, another official has decided that a third-party publication (Reddings) is right and the NFHS Rule Book is wrong. I don't know why people continue to choose the Reddings GUIDE over the RULE BOOK when there is an apparent conflict between the two. The game isn't played using the Reddings Guide, it's played using the Rule Book. If the 2010 Reddings Guide says one thing and the 2010 Rule Book contradicts it, guess which one is ALWAYS going to be the one actually "wrong" for the 2010 season?
Reddings is a nice supplemental publication to have on your bookshelf, but it will never have the same weight during a game as the rule book will. Calling the rule book wrong and using Reddings as your justification is ludicrous.