Contradicting rules

[Frank K]

I have been challenged to compose a list of all the contradictions in the NCAA rulebook.  Challenge accepted!!  :-)

A good example is how 9-1-16-b says that unsportsmanlike conduct for "simulating being roughed" is enforced from the previous spot while 10-2-4 says that any foul by A - except KCI - can also be enforced from where the ball belongs to B.

So if you know of anyone who has already made a list like that, or if you can think of any other examples, please feel free to share.

[Kalle]

A good example is how 9-1-16-b says that unsportsmanlike conduct for "simulating being roughed" is enforced from the previous spot while 10-2-4 says that any foul by A - except KCI - can also be enforced from where the ball belongs to B.

I don't think that is a contradiction. The rules writers have decided to adopt a way of writing the enforcements so that the penalty clause only list the "basic" enforcement, and rule 10 can then modify that enforcement at will.

[Rulesman]

Agree with Kalle. "Can be enforced" does not mean "must be enforced."

[Frank K]

That specific example really wasn't the point, unless you are saying there are no contradictions in the book??

[Morningrise]

I have been challenged to compose a list of all the contradictions in the NCAA rulebook.  Challenge accepted!!  :-)

I thought of one potential contradiction, but it took me a while. And it requires a REALLY weird play situation.

2-30-1. "A legal forward pass play is the interval between the snap and when a legal forward pass is complete, incomplete or intercepted."
and
7-3-8-b "Offensive pass interference by a Team A player beyond the neutral zone during a legal forward pass play in which a forward pass crosses the neutral zone is contact that interferes with a Team B eligible player. It is the responsibility of the offensive player to avoid the opponents."

- versus -

2-30-3. "A scrimmage kick play is the interval between the snap and when a scrimmage kick comes into player possession or the ball is declared dead by rule."
and
9-3-3-e-1. "A player on the kicking team may[,] During a scrimmage kick play, use his hand(s) and/or arm(s) to ward off an opponent attempting to block him when he is beyond the neutral zone."


But what if a play has BOTH a legal forward pass AND a legal scrimmage kick?

4th and 10 at the A-30. Punter A4 receives the snap, but bobbles it and decides to throw a desperation pass. His legal forward pass is batted back to him by B99 at the A-33. A4 manages to catch his own pass at the A-24, and now he is able to punt. The punt rolls out of bounds at the B-35. Prior to the pass, end A88, a gunner, used his hands to ward off an opponent at the A-33.

Note that A88's action occurred before the reception of a legal forward pass (2-30-1) and also before the end of a legal scrimmage kick (2-30-3). Is it then a foul (7-3-8-b) or not (9-3-3-e-1)?

(Note also that nothing prevents Team A from legally punting the ball, even after a legal forward pass that has crossed the neutral zone. [2-16-7-a])

[dvasques]

Same play but other order. It's a kick play but the kick is blocked at the LOS and goes back to the kicker, who makes a pass forward to A88 20 yards downfield. But A88 was making contact with the defender all the way through the "rout"
Is that OPI?

[clearwall]

I believe in either of these situations, you have two different plays. So any fouls occuring are enforced for that particular play i.e. DPI during the first pass, roughing the kicker in the second. Penalize in order of occurence

[Kalle]

I believe in either of these situations, you have two different plays.

That is what I would probably decide on the field, but by rule both kick and pass play rules are in effect in these (rare) situations, resulting in contradictions.

[BankerRef]

I believe in either of these situations, you have two different plays. So any fouls occuring are enforced for that particular play i.e. DPI during the first pass, roughing the kicker in the second. Penalize in order of occurence

Unless I am misunderstanding what is being said here you have two play segments during a single down.  Understandingly, there is room for some confusion because by definition both go back to the snap in describing the play segments so you do have overlap.  However, for enforcement purposes you will not penalize both live-ball fouls regardless of order of occurrence or which play segment of the down in which they occur.  If you have a foul against both teams simply offset and replay regardless of which play segment since there was not change of possession.  If two fouls against the same team, give the options and penalize accordingly.  Don't really think about the contradictions but apply a little common sense.   For DPI consider that it occurred during the pass segment and if roughing the kicker consider that it occurred during the kick segment.  Choose one or the other but not both and put the foul where it fits for the enforcement spot.

[Joe Stack]

The rule reference on the scrimmage kick play defines what an offensive player can do on a scrimmage kick play. It does NOT define what he can and can't do on a pass play. If the player does those things he can't do on what turns out to be a pass play, then yes, he would be responsible and possibly commit a foul. However, I don't think the intent of the wording of either rule is to cover the unusual situation when BOTH things occur. In that instance, the officials should start being alert for OPI after the offense has regained the ball after the kick.

Either way, it isn't a contridiction.

The following was based on the previous rule book. I haven't checked to see if there were changes in the most recent book:

When a player attempts to reach a runner or legally attempts to recover or catch a fumble, a backward pass, a kick or a touched forward pass, he may push an opponent in the back above the waist (Rule 9-­1-­5 Exception 3).

When the ball is loose, no player shall hold an opponent;; illegally block an opponent in the back;; twist, turn or pull an opponent’s face mask or any helmet opening;; or illegally use his hands or commit a personal foul (A.R. 7-­3-­9-­I).

[Morningrise]

I have been challenged to compose a list of all the contradictions in the NCAA rulebook.  Challenge accepted!!  :-)

A good example is how 9-1-16-b says that unsportsmanlike conduct for "simulating being roughed" is enforced from the previous spot while 10-2-4 says that any foul by A - except KCI - can also be enforced from where the ball belongs to B.

So if you know of anyone who has already made a list like that, or if you can think of any other examples, please feel free to share.

Found one

8-6-2. "After a touchback is declared, the ball belongs to the defending team at its own 20-yard line, unless the touchback results from a free kick, in which case the ball belongs to Team B at its 25-yard line."

This is all well and good for the 99.9% of free kicks that become dead in an end zone, because that's typically Team B's end zone. But:

Following a safety and a dead-ball unsportsmanlike conduct foul against them, Team A attempts an onside kick from the A-10. The kick bounces off B99 at the A-19 and is rolling at the A-12 when B88 intentionally bats the ball forward, imparting new impetus. The ball strikes the goal line pylon. Team A wishes to decline the penalty for the illegal bat.

Touchback for Team A, right? A's 1/10 @ A-20? possibly the A-25? But wait, this is a free kick that ends in a touchback, and 8-6-2 wants to give the ball specifically to Team B, at the other end of the field.

By the way, if this ever happened in real life, I assume we all agree this is really Team A's ball - do we spot the ball at the A-20 or the A-25 though?

[jg-me]

See what you're getting at but technically the touchback in your scenario was a result of the illegal bat and not the free kick itself. And, yes, the status of the ball would still be a kick.

[Morningrise]

See what you're getting at but technically the touchback in your scenario was a result of the illegal bat and not the free kick itself. And, yes, the status of the ball would still be a kick.

So you're interpreting the rule as granting a touchback at the B-25 only when the impetus, not the status, of the ball is the free kick. That makes sense since only Team A can perform a free kick.

But what would you rule if Team A bats their own free kick into Team B's end zone? Does the 25-yard touchback cease to apply? The impetus is no longer charged to the kicker, but to the batter.

[Bwest]

In reference to where I would start the series for A if the touchback followed a free kick in A's end zone, I'd put it at the 20-yard line.

[jg-me]

I simply read 8-6-2 to say that if there is a free kick and the ball is going to belong to B, a touchback will result in the ball being placed on the B-25. Any other touchback would result in the ball being placed on the 20 yard-line of the team to which the ball now belongs.

[Kalle]

But what would you rule if Team A bats their own free kick into Team B's end zone? Does the 25-yard touchback cease to apply? The impetus is no longer charged to the kicker, but to the batter.

By literal reading of the rule, I think yes, the ball would belong to team B at the B-20. However, if you were to send this play to RR, I would guess that he would rule at B-25.