Fumble at GL

[Diablo]

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.

[Diablo]

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.

[Legacy Zebra]

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.

[Rulesman]

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. 

[Johnponz]

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. 

[TxSkyBolt]

If they and everybody in the stadium thought it was a TD, they wouldn't fall on it.

[JasonTX]

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. . If it's not 4th down 

[James]

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.

[TxSkyBolt]

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

[Johnponz]

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.

[Watson]

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)

[TxSkyBolt]

Well, there ya go. Game, set and Match:)


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[younggun]

Still does not end the 4th down debate.

[fencewire]

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.

[younggun]

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). 

[jg-me]

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.

[DallasLJ]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.