Author Topic: Basic Spot Question (Read 19060 times)

prab · « **on:** August 27, 2013, 10:02:31 AM »

The following question appears on the 2013 Part 2 Exam. It (or a similar question) has appeared in prior years.

The answer that the NFHS is looking for is "D". (According to prior years answers and our association's discussion last night.) If "D" is correct, the basic spot for penalty enforcement must be the previous spot, the basic spot for loose ball play enforcement.

My question is, why doesn't 10-4-7 apply, making the basic spot the goal line, resulting in first and 5 for A from A's 15 yard line.

Please advise. I was denounced as a heretic last night and would like to be redeemed, or at least convinced that 10-4-7 does not apply.

100. With first and 10 from A's 10-yard line, A1 drops back into his end zone, where he is tackled by the face mask/helmet opening and fumbles. The ball rolls out of bounds at A's 5-yard line. What is the ruling?

A. Following penalty administration, it will be A's ball, first and 10 at A's 10-yard line.
B. Following penalty administration, it will be A's ball, first and 10 at A's 15-yard line.
C. Following penalty administration, it will be A's ball, first and 10 at A's 20-yard line.
D. Following penalty administration, it will be A's ball, first and 10 at A's 25-yard line.

jg-me · « **Reply #1 on:** August 27, 2013, 10:21:26 AM »

Without benefit of a NF book, I am guessing that 10-4-7 makes reference to 'running plays' as opposed to loose ball plays (check definition of each in rule 2). The play as described is a loose ball play as relates to penalty enforcement.

TampaSteve · « **Reply #2 on:** August 27, 2013, 10:37:10 AM »

fumble = Loose ball play. Basic spot = previous play's spot.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #3 on:** August 27, 2013, 10:51:45 AM »

Like my Maine buddy stated, this was a fumble behind the LOS..i.e.. a loose ball play (10-3-1c) with previous spot enforcement. Note that 10-4-7 refers to "running plays" and where "related run ends in the end zone...". These would be more applicable to COP plays where a related run could end in the endzone followed by a fumble. By accepting the penalty in your play, you are replaying the down and your play ,by definition, was a loose ball play = previous spot enforcement = 1st & 10 @ 25.

prab · « **Reply #4 on:** August 27, 2013, 10:53:39 AM »

I submit the following, previously posted by Ralph regarding the various basic spot rules:

10-4-7 is intended to cover plays such as : 2 /10 @ A's 10 when A's QB scrambles back into his endzone where he is tackled by PF facemask and fumbles with ball going OOB @ A's 3 = 2 / 5 @ A's 15. Hope this helps to clarify. Sorry for the confusion.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #5 on:** August 27, 2013, 10:59:22 AM »

Quote from: prab on August 27, 2013, 10:53:39 AM

I submit the following, previously posted by Ralph regarding the various basic spot rules:

10-4-7 is intended to cover plays such as : 2 /10 @ A's 10 when A's QB scrambles back into his endzone where he is tackled by PF facemask and fumbles with ball going OOB @ A's 3 = 2 / 5 @ A's 15. Hope this helps to clarify. Sorry for the confusion.

If my murky memory serves me correctly, I later corrected my stance on this after an older and wiser committee member corrected me

Ump33 · « **Reply #6 on:** August 27, 2013, 11:01:32 AM »

10-4-7 applies on a play after a change of team possession (ie. interception, fumble recovery, fielding a kick ... ) and the runner takes the ball into his own end zone and the run ends in the EZ and is followed by a loose ball. Even though the runner fumbles, this is not a "Loose Ball Play", it is a "Running Play" that ended in the EZ and the Basic Spot is the Goal Line. This is addressed 2008 NFHS Football Rule Change Power Point.

The test question is a "Loose Ball Play" by definition ... "fumble made by A from in or behind the neutral zone and prior to a change of team possession." 10-4-2b states "The basic spot is the previous spot for a foul which occurs during a loose ball play ..."

Sorry Ralph, didn't mean to walk on your post ... I'm a slow search & peck typist

maven · « **Reply #7 on:** August 27, 2013, 11:04:12 AM »

Here's 10-4-7:

Quote

The basic spot is the goal line for fouls, which are committed during running plays by the opponent of the team in possession at the time of the foul when the team in possession is responsible for forcing the ball across its own goal line, and the related run ends in the end zone and is followed by a loose ball, regardless of where the loose ball becomes dead.

And here's 10.4.7:

Quote

10.4.7 SITUATION:

B1 intercepts A1's pass at B's 6-yard line and retreats to B's end zone where B1 is grabbed by the face mask by A2 who twists the mask. B1 then fumbles while in the end zone and (a) the ball rolls back into the field of play and then goes out of bounds at B's 2-yard line; (b) the ball rolls back into the field of play where B7 recovers the ball at B's 5-yard line.

RULING: In both (a) and (b), the basic spot is the goal line and the accepted penalty will result in a first down for Team B at its 15-yard line.

Ump33 has explained the application of 10-4-7 quite well, and the case play exemplifies his explanation.

prab · « **Reply #8 on:** August 27, 2013, 11:08:09 AM »

I hereby confess my sins as a nonbeliever and end my quest for redemption. Loose ball play it is, with basic spot for enforcement at the previous spot.

Thanks to all!

Curious · « **Reply #9 on:** August 27, 2013, 01:31:30 PM »

Quote from: prab on August 27, 2013, 11:08:09 AM

I hereby confess my sins as a nonbeliever and end my quest for redemption. Loose ball play it is, with basic spot for enforcement at the previous spot.

Thanks to all!

Don't give up so easily "prab"...I think you're right. The right answer should be B.

This is about force; and who put the ball in the end zone. In this FED question, it is A (the team in possession), who forced the ball (by running) into his own end zone. B (the opponent of the team in possession) subsequently fouled A in the end zone causing A, in effect, to fumble. 10-4-7 specifically addresses the running play/loose ball play argument by stating: "...and the related run ends in the end zone and is followed by a loose ball, regardless of where the loose ball becomes dead".

I respect the learned folks who have argued that this is a previous spot enforcement; but I believe the rule was put in recently to provide a more equitable outcome when either the defense or the offense forced the ball into the end zone. In this play, why should A benefit when they provided the force? If B had not fouled, A would have faced 2/15 from their 5. If they hadn't gotten out of the end zone, with no foul by B, it would have been a safety. With B's foul, and no fumble, 10-5-2 would apply ("The enforcement spot for any foul by the defense is the goal line when the run ends in the EZ and would result in a safety").

Conversely, if B (the opponent of the team in possession) had forced the ball into A's EZ, then fouled, the basic spot would be the 20 yd line, 1/10 from A's 35 (10-4-6). This rule applies to COP situations most of the time - but not exclusively.

I think the FED is looking for the wrong "right" answer.

Rulesman · « **Reply #10 on:** August 27, 2013, 02:05:59 PM »

Quote from: Curious on August 27, 2013, 01:31:30 PM

I think the FED is looking for the wrong "right" answer.

Anything else new? This happens every year.

Mike L · « **Reply #11 on:** August 27, 2013, 02:08:57 PM »

Quote from: Curious on August 27, 2013, 01:31:30 PM

Don't give up so easily "prab"...I think you're right. The right answer should be B.

And you would be wrong because once again someone mistakenly thinks a loose ball automatically creates a loose ball play, which it does not. And therefore you are thinking 10-4-7 somehow trumps the definition of a loose ball play. 10-4-7 relates to a running play only, in which a loose ball may occur, but it's still for use on a running play. That is all. The original question involves a loose ball play, so 10-4-7 does not apply.

Curious · « **Reply #12 on:** August 27, 2013, 02:45:17 PM »

Quote from: Mike L on August 27, 2013, 02:08:57 PM

And you would be wrong because once again someone mistakenly thinks a loose ball automatically creates a loose ball play, which it does not. And therefore you are thinking 10-4-7 somehow trumps the definition of a loose ball play. 10-4-7 relates to a running play only, in which a loose ball may occur, but it's still for use on a running play. That is all. The original question involves a loose ball play, so 10-4-7 does not apply.

Well that didn't take long....
For the record Mike, I do know the difference between a loose ball and and a loose ball play.

From my perspective, however, 10-4-6 and 10-4-7 are no different than the PSK spot. They're exceptions. Call it "trumping" if you want; but I believe that the rules makers intended for enforcement spot to be different depending on who originally forced the ball into an EZ. Maybe the key component is where these rules specify that the foul occurs at the time of the foul (during a running play), the team in possession is responsible for forcing the ball across its own end zone. Why would this rule be in existence if the rules makers didn't want to differentiate between action which followed a loose ball forced into the EZ?

I don't think we can simply ignore 8-5-1...

Ump33 · « **Reply #13 on:** August 27, 2013, 04:40:42 PM »

Quote from: Curious on August 27, 2013, 02:45:17 PM

Well that didn't take long....
For the record Mike, I do know the difference between a loose ball and and a loose ball play.

From my perspective, however, 10-4-6 and 10-4-7 are no different than the PSK spot. They're exceptions. Call it "trumping" if you want; but I believe that the rules makers intended for enforcement spot to be different depending on who originally forced the ball into an EZ. Maybe the key component is where these rules specify that the foul occurs at the time of the foul (during a running play), the team in possession is responsible for forcing the ball across its own end zone. Why would this rule be in existence if the rules makers didn't want to differentiate between action which followed a loose ball forced into the EZ?

I don't think we can simply ignore 8-5-1...

Look at the following Case Book Plays ...

10.3.1 SITUATION C: With first and 10 from A’s 5-yard line, A1 drops back into his end zone, where he is tackled by the face mask/helmet opening and fumbles. The ball rolls out of bounds at A’s 3-yard line. RULING: The fumble by A is a loose-ball play behind the neutral zone which would be enforced from the previous spot. Following penalty administration, it will be A’s ball, first and 10, at A’s 20-yard line.

10.4.7 SITUATION: B1 intercepts A1’s pass at B’s 6-yard line and retreats to B’s end zone where B1 is grabbed by the face mask by A2 who twists the mask. B1 then fumbles while in the end zone and (a) the ball rolls back into the field of play and then goes out of bounds at B’s 2-yard line; (b) the ball rolls back into the field of play where B7 recovers the ball at B’s 5-yard line. RULING: In both (a) and (b), the basic spot is the goal line and the accepted penalty will result in a first down for Team B at its 15-yard line.

Curious · « **Reply #14 on:** August 27, 2013, 08:21:49 PM »

You got me UMP! My bad.

Glad I haven't had this play or I would have made an enforcement error. Guess I read too much into 10-4-7; but that's no excuse. C.B 10.5.4 even further clarifies this for me.

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #15 on:** August 27, 2013, 08:24:18 PM »

Curious:
Take the end zone out of the play and look what happens.

LOS is the 50. A14 retreats to pass, is grabbed by the face mask and is tackled. This is a running play, and the penalty is enforced from the end of the run.

Same play, except after being grabbed by the face mask, A14 fumbles the ball and it is recovered by B (or A or rolls OOB). In all these cases, it is a loose ball play, and the penalty is enforced from the previous spot.

So A gets a "benefit" by fumbling the ball!

So now put the end zone back into it. Why should it be treated any differenetly than it was at midfield. Why should this "inequity" be fixed just because the goal line was involved. It shouldn't! The enforcement should be the exact same.

Given that, the answer must be D.

Curious · « **Reply #16 on:** August 27, 2013, 08:50:00 PM »

Quote from: Atlanta Blue on August 27, 2013, 08:24:18 PM

Curious:

So A gets a "benefit" by fumbling the ball!

Yeah, yeah...rub it in!

Atlanta Blue · « **Reply #17 on:** August 27, 2013, 09:14:14 PM »

Quote from: Curious on August 27, 2013, 08:50:00 PM

Yeah, yeah...rub it in!

Well, I was typing when you gave in.

Curious · « **Reply #18 on:** August 28, 2013, 08:10:27 AM »

Quote from: Atlanta Blue on August 27, 2013, 09:14:14 PM

Well, I was typing when you gave in.

You're forgiven.

I'm still embarrassed that I did not review ALL the Case Book plays and that I read more into the rule than is really there. I truly thought I had interpreted the intent correctly.

I do, however, HATE IT when I'm wrong!!!!!

maven · « **Reply #19 on:** August 28, 2013, 08:29:51 AM »

Quote from: Curious on August 28, 2013, 08:10:27 AM

I do, however, HATE IT when I'm wrong!!!!!

May I recommend a change of heart? We learn much more from being wrong than from being right.

And I, for one, have great appreciation for the forum contributor whose ego allows him to admit he was wrong.

prab · « **Reply #20 on:** August 28, 2013, 09:22:38 AM »

Curious,

First, thank you for taking some of the heat off of me!

Second, think twice before you agree with someone (me) who does not believe that wearing shorts for a varsity game is a capital offense.

Curious · « **Reply #21 on:** August 28, 2013, 12:26:37 PM »

Quote from: maven on August 28, 2013, 08:29:51 AM

May I recommend a change of heart? We learn much more from being wrong than from being right.
And I, for one, have great appreciation for the forum contributor whose ego allows him to admit he was wrong.

Thanks Maven; but I do pride myself on not making rules mistakes - although this would not be the first time it's happened (maybe the second time

.) I can forgive myself for missing a call on the field but there's no excuse for a rules error. I'm not, however, ready to commit suicide....

Quote from: prab on August 28, 2013, 09:22:38 AM

Curious,
First, thank you for taking some of the heat off of me! Second, think twice before you agree with someone (me) who does not believe that wearing shorts for a varsity game is a capital offense.

"Heat" has never bothered me. As I've written here before, officials should do their own due-diligence rather than take someone's word about a rule. In this instance, I didn't do mine - which does bother me.

We all need to periodically get "kicked in the slats" so as not to get arrogant or complacent.