Author Topic: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ  (Read 646 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-8
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Second possession series in 2nd extra period.
Team A, Fourth & 10 @ B-25. A trails 17-14.
The FG attempt is partially blocked and lands at the B-18. A90 tries to recover but muffs the ball at that spot .
B30 then muffs the ball at the B-17 and grounded A88 recovers at the B-16.

Result?

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3059
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-105
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #1 on: August 13, 2019, 09:51:42 AM »
Illegal touch at the B18.  B ball 1st and 10 at the IT spot.
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • FAN REACTION: +42/-9
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #2 on: August 13, 2019, 10:11:09 AM »
Illegal touching is ignored in extra periods. By rule this is As ball at the spot of recovery.

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-8
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #3 on: August 13, 2019, 10:22:41 AM »
Thanks I thought same per 6-3-2-d but this seems really unfair to Team B. Any idea on what the logic is behind ignoring in extra periods?

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1019
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-68
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #4 on: August 13, 2019, 10:22:50 AM »
Illegal touch at the B18.  B ball 1st and 10 at the IT spot.

Yes, the ball belongs to Team B at the spot of illegal touching.  Because of that, the possession series ends, and, thus, the game is over, B wins.  Had the score been tied, another extra period would be played (after a 2-minute break, but we still don't know if that is 90 + 5 + 25, or 120 + 5 + 25).

Robert
[/s][/s]

Well, I guess I need some re-training.  6-3-2-d tells the truth. 
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 02:49:47 PM by ElvisLives »

Online ETXZebra

  • *
  • Posts: 381
  • FAN REACTION: +15/-7
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #5 on: August 13, 2019, 10:55:12 AM »
6-3-2-d say on a try.  This was a field goal attempt.

d- Illegal touching on a try, in extra periods, or in Team As end zone is
ignored.

Offline JDM

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-2
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #6 on: August 13, 2019, 12:47:54 PM »
Thanks I thought same per 6-3-2-d but this seems really unfair to Team B. Any idea on what the logic is behind ignoring in extra periods?

Good question. A cautionary lesson in extra periods for Team B.

Offline bctgp

  • *
  • Posts: 123
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-8
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #7 on: August 13, 2019, 12:55:38 PM »
Actually, with the placement of the commas, I think 6-3-2-d says ignored for the following 3 scenarios:

(1) Illegal touching on a try
(2) in extra periods, or
(3) in Team As end zone

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3059
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-105
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #8 on: August 13, 2019, 01:33:06 PM »
Illegal touching is ignored in extra periods. By rule this is As ball at the spot of recovery.

Except we're in extra periods (I missed that part in the original post) and it was the 4th (last) play in the series.  Doesn't that mean that we start a new series at the 25 1st & 10?  No, because the ball is beyond the original NZ.  ;D
« Last Edit: August 13, 2019, 01:43:50 PM by NVFOA_Ump »
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1019
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-68
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #9 on: August 13, 2019, 03:18:13 PM »
Yeah, everyone, even two current FBS guys, would have said Illegal Touching, ball belongs to B, series over (game over, in this case).  Apparently, we'd have been wrong.  And none of us can recall or rationalize why.

Robert



Offline Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 619
  • FAN REACTION: +42/-9
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #10 on: August 13, 2019, 04:17:01 PM »
If you look at the three cases where ITK is ignored, they are all times where Team B can't put the ball in play at that spot. On a try, Team B won't put the ball in play at all. In extra periods, they would only be able to put the ball in play at the 25 (or 3 now in 5OT+). And if the touching happened in A's end zone, the ball can't be put into play there at all and the rules don't want to award a TD simply for ITK. The issue is that the violation shouldn't be ignored as the rule says. The penalty for the violation should simply change. If I were writing it, it would look like this.

a. ...gives the receiving team the option of taking the ball at the spot of the violation. EXCEPTION: On a try, any Team A score is canceled and the try is over. In extra periods, any Team A score is canceled and Team A's possession series is over.

There isn't a great way to deal with ITK in A's end zone.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1019
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-68
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #11 on: August 13, 2019, 07:22:16 PM »
I discovered this editorial change was made in 2017 - very recent, relatively speaking.  Why we wouldn't remember this, I can't say.

Yeah, the key is whether or not the rules committee thought awarding a TD to team B was too much of a penalty to team A for committing illegal touching in their own end zone.  But letting Team A get a new series (regular scrimmage field goal attempt) just seems wrong.  There is no 'play' difference between a regular scrimmage field goal attempt in regulation and in an extra period.  So, I don't know why illegal touching should not apply.  Why should Team A get to keep the ball after they commit what would otherwise be ITK?  Team B does their job and blocks the kick, but Team A recovers one yard beyond the NZ, and they get a new series...That's messed up.

How about this:  4/G, B-5, extra period.  A's field goal attempt is blocked at the NZ, and A88 attempts to recover the nearly motionless ball at the B-4.  A88 muffs the recovery attempt, but defects the ball toward B's goal line. B99 attempts to recover the ball at the B-2, but muffs it and it continues into B's end zone, where it is recovered by A77.
So, we ignore the touching by A88, and, because B99 touched it, the ball remans alive after it gets into B's end zone, and A77 recovers it for a TD.

Well, that's different.  In regulation, B could elect illegal touching and take the ball at the B-2, to avoid the TD.

I have one more source to check.

Robert

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1483
  • FAN REACTION: +82/-23
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #12 on: August 13, 2019, 09:19:09 PM »
If you look at the three cases where ITK is ignored, they are all times where Team B can't put the ball in play at that spot. On a try, Team B won't put the ball in play at all. In extra periods, they would only be able to put the ball in play at the 25 (or 3 now in 5OT+).

I think you're on the right track here.  I think this was an editorial change that caused more problems than it solved.  Much like many years ago putting in the penalty for Illegal Forward Pass is a Loss of Down "if by Team A prior to a change of possession."  They probably thought "well, since after a change of possession the continuity of downs is broken, then there really wouldn't be a loss of down.  So let's put that in the penalty."  What that ended up messing up was when Team B intercepts and throws an IFP from the 5 into the end zone for a TD when time expires for the half or game.  Technically with that wording of the penalty, the IFP isn't a loss of down foul which therefore would extend the period.  It took an interpretation by Rogers in a bulletin to close that loophole.

I bet a similar thought process went through on this. They probably thought, "well, if there was ITK on a Try or Extra period, we wouldn't be giving the ball to Team B at that ITK spot.  The next snap is the kickoff or the 25 for the next OT possession.  So let's put that in the rule to clear that up." (like anybody asked for it).  What they screwed up was what the OP illustrates.  In no way should Team A get another possession after illegally touching the kick beyond the NZ.  But with this editorial change, they can, apparently.

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2865
  • FAN REACTION: +102/-34
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #13 on: August 14, 2019, 12:41:32 AM »
Us IFAF officials have it easy. Our version of 6-3-2-d says: "Illegal touching in Team A's end zone is ignored. Illegal touching on a try results in no score. Illegal touching in an extra period results in team possession ending." I think our rules writer doesn't mind if NCAA copies this verbatim for 2020 :)

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1019
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-68
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #14 on: August 14, 2019, 07:34:18 AM »
Nobody is paying attention to us, so this is all rather moot, but I'll play.  Here would be my suggested language:

6-3-2

d. During a try down, or during any down in an extra period, the illegal touching privilege cancels a score by either team, and ends the try, or the possession series in an extra period.

That is, of course, unless the Rules Committee WANTS Team A to have the ability to earn a new series, or score, after being the first to touch a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone.  I doubt that is the case, but that is what the current rule language seems to allow.

Anybody listening?

Robert

Offline JDM

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-2
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #15 on: August 14, 2019, 07:44:51 AM »
Illegal touching is ignored in extra periods. By rule this is As ball at the spot of recovery.

I believe this is correct. Does everyone agree or otherwise have another opinion?

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3059
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-105
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #16 on: August 14, 2019, 10:00:59 AM »
I believe this is correct. Does everyone agree or otherwise have another opinion?

I believe that the majority of us agree, but we clearly have the "Rule of unintended consequences" here.  The poor wording in the "change" left a huge hole that was clearly not intended.  It was intended to "simplify" our officiating that the series would simply be over in the case of the play here but the actual wording got in the way. 
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8565
  • FAN REACTION: +226/-244
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #17 on: August 14, 2019, 11:22:38 AM »

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #18 on: August 14, 2019, 11:53:22 AM »
I would endorse something like http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=13426.msg139970#msg139970
."This is illegal touching, a violation that, when the ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team the privilege of taking the ball at the spot of the violation except on a try or in extra periods." To that, I will add. If on a try, the down is ended, neither team may score, and the ball shall next be put in play with a kickoff. In extra periods, if play is to continue, the ball shall be put in play at the succeeding spot.

In this case, the period is over if rule 6-3-2-d was modified to read like this.

However, in the current edition of the rules, A 1/10 from the B16 is the only correct option.
« Last Edit: August 14, 2019, 12:35:38 PM by ilyazhito »

Offline JDM

  • *
  • Posts: 170
  • FAN REACTION: +3/-2
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #19 on: August 14, 2019, 12:27:03 PM »
I thought I had seen something on this :   http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=13426.msg140005#msg140005

Thanks to Mike for digging this up. It was a problem then and it's a problem now. How do we reconcile, by the spirit and intent of the rule that's been opined or by the verbatim rule?


In my humble opinion, until the wording is changed to clarify the rule, the rule must be followed as written and in this specific play scenario the ruling is A 1/10 @ B-16. Again just my 2.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1019
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-68
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #20 on: August 14, 2019, 01:51:40 PM »
I thought I had seen something on this :   http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=13426.msg140005#msg140005

Wow.  I'm definitely old.  I don't remember that, but, I'll pat myself on the back for being consistent.  What I said back then is what I'm saying today!

Shaw really needs to address this.

Robert

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 98
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #21 on: August 15, 2019, 06:25:43 AM »
Second. The current rule, while understandable (B cannot legally put the ball in play from an illegal touching spot on a try, extra period, or in A's end zone, since A will next possess the ball on the kickoff, the ball will be moved to the 25-yard line of the new team on defense to start the next series in the extra period, and putting the ball in play from A's end zone would result in a touchdown) is unfair, since A can score on plays where they illegally touch the ball, if those plays are in the "special" class (tries, OT, in their own end zone).

Perhaps illegal touching in the end zone could result in a safety, since A put the ball in their end zone and it became dead there. That would be equitable, since B cannot be awarded a touchdown. The other 2 situations can be addressed by cancelling the score and moving on to the kickoff (in regulation), or to the next series(in extra periods), if there is a next series.

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2865
  • FAN REACTION: +102/-34
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #22 on: August 15, 2019, 07:16:24 AM »
Perhaps illegal touching in the end zone could result in a safety, since A put the ball in their end zone and it became dead there. That would be equitable, since B cannot be awarded a touchdown. The other 2 situations can be addressed by cancelling the score and moving on to the kickoff (in regulation), or to the next series(in extra periods), if there is a next series.

Personally I don't care which result it is for an IT in team A end zone, as that is really rare (anybody ever seen this?). But yeah, safety might be the "equitable" result. The OT one is the really important one to fix.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1019
  • FAN REACTION: +69/-68
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Interesting Question on touching a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ
« Reply #23 on: August 15, 2019, 07:48:18 AM »
The chances of Team A getting a positive result after being the first to touch a scrimmage kick in their own end zone AFTER it has crossed the NZ are slim and none.  They won't be able to advance the ball, so, if this touching in the end zone is a full catch or recovery, the ball is dead behind their own goal line, and the impetus is with their kick, so that's a safety.  If they first touch the ball in the end zone and it subsequently travels back into the field of play where they recover it, again, it will be dead at that spot, and B's ball.
The best Team A could hope for is if Team B touches (muffs) the ball after A touches it in the A end zone, and then Team A recovers in the field of play, and they'd get a new series.  What are the odds of that happening?  Very poor.  Technically possible, yes.  But not a coachable result.
So, nothing really wrong with that rule, until that happens, and a Big 10 team loses to any other conference team in the national championship game.  Then Dulaney will get the rule changed, and try to make it retroactive, and have the championship game ruled null and void or something.  Yeah, he's retiring, but, let me assure you, he would spearhead that effort, if it were to happen.

Robert