Author Topic: Couple of test questions (Read 13240 times)

James · « **on:** October 12, 2011, 04:34:08 AM »

I'm prepping a test in our off-season and I'm looking for a little help.

1) Can someone point me to the definitive ruling about when the holder has a knee on the ground and tosses the ball over to the kicker who is running towards the other hash mark.
It was a discussion 2 years ago about when there is still someone 'in position to make a kick' and I'm looking for how that discussion ended up (or a bulletin that clears it up).

2) 4th and G on B's 9. A's FG attempt is blocked on the line. The ball lands on B's 7 and bounces back behind the NZ. B-93 bats the ball in the direction of his own goal line at B's 11. The ball is caught by A-80 in B's endzone.

Thanks in advance

Andrew McCarthy · « **Reply #1 on:** October 12, 2011, 07:27:09 AM »

Quote from: James on October 12, 2011, 04:34:08 AM

1) Can someone point me to the definitive ruling about when the holder has a knee on the ground and tosses the ball over to the kicker who is running towards the other hash mark.
It was a discussion 2 years ago about when there is still someone 'in position to make a kick' and I'm looking for how that discussion ended up (or a bulletin that clears it up).

The exception to 4-1-3-b was modified to include the words "at the snap" regarding the player in position to make a kick.

Diablo · « **Reply #2 on:** October 12, 2011, 09:42:40 AM »

Quote from: James on October 12, 2011, 04:34:08 AM

I'm prepping a test in our off-season and I'm looking for a little help.

2) 4th and G on B's 9. A's FG attempt is blocked on the line. The ball lands on B's 7 and bounces back behind the NZ. B-93 bats the ball in the direction of his own goal line at B's 11. The ball is caught by A-80 in B's endzone.

Touchdown

clearwall · « **Reply #3 on:** October 12, 2011, 11:28:15 AM »

Quote from: Diablo on October 12, 2011, 09:42:40 AM

Touchdown

For batting the ball?

****EDIT****
Reread the question and now I agree with you. Dang these things are hard to visualize sometimes, arent theY?

Welpe · « **Reply #4 on:** October 12, 2011, 11:44:40 AM »

Does 8-4-2-b apply here?

1. When the ball is declared dead beyond the neutral zone and is untouched
by Team B beyond the neutral zone, it belongs to Team B. Except in
an extra period Team B will snap the ball at the previous spot unless the
previous spot was between its 20-yard line and the goal line. In that case
Team B will next snap the ball at its 20-yard line. The 20-yard-line snap
shall be from midway between the hash marks unless Team B selects a
different location on or between the hash marks before the ready-forplay
signal. After the ready-for-play signal, the ball may be relocated
after a charged team timeout, unless preceded by a Team A foul or
offsetting fouls.

2. If the ball does not cross the neutral zone or if Team B touches the ball
beyond the neutral zone, all rules pertaining to scrimmage kicks apply
(A.R. 6-3-4-II, A.R. 8-4-2-I-VI and A.R. 10-2-3-V).

BankerRef · « **Reply #5 on:** October 12, 2011, 12:32:38 PM »

I believe the ball touching the ground at the B7 constitutes crossing the neutral zone. 2-16-7-b and 6-3-3 apply.

Diablo · « **Reply #6 on:** October 12, 2011, 01:52:14 PM »

Quote from: Welpe on October 12, 2011, 11:44:40 AM

Does 8-4-2-b apply here?

1. When the ball is declared dead beyond the neutral zone and is untouched
by Team B beyond the neutral zone, it belongs to Team B. Except in
an extra period Team B will snap the ball at the previous spot unless the
previous spot was between its 20-yard line and the goal line. In that case
Team B will next snap the ball at its 20-yard line.

That is the wording in the 2011 rule book.

In the 2009-10 book the passage reads:
After an unsuccessful field goal attempt that has crossed the neutral
zone, the ball will next be put in play by Team B. If the ball is untouched
by Team B after having crossed the neutral zone and is subsequently
declared dead beyond the neutral zone, Team B will next snap it at the
previous spot, or extra-period rules govern. If the previous spot was
between Team B’s 20-yard line and the goal line, Team B will next
snap the ball on or between the inbounds lines at its 20-yard line, or
extra-period rules govern.

Note the difference in bold.
Doesn't 6-3-3 contradict the new version of 8-4-2-b-1?

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #7 on:** October 12, 2011, 02:32:49 PM »

Quote from: Diablo on October 12, 2011, 01:52:14 PM

That is the wording in the 2011 rule book.

In the 2009-10 book the passage reads:
After an unsuccessful field goal attempt that has crossed the neutral
zone, the ball will next be put in play by Team B. If the ball is untouched
by Team B after having crossed the neutral zone and is subsequently
declared dead beyond the neutral zone, Team B will next snap it at the
previous spot, or extra-period rules govern. If the previous spot was
between Team B’s 20-yard line and the goal line, Team B will next
snap the ball on or between the inbounds lines at its 20-yard line, or
extra-period rules govern.

Note the difference in bold.
Doesn't 6-3-3 contradict the new version of 8-4-2-b-1?

Why does 6-3-3 conflict with this?

6-3-3. When a scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone touches a player of the receiving team who is inbounds, any player may catch or recover the ball (Rule 6-3-1-b) (Exceptions: Rules 6-3-4 and 6-5-1-b).

I don't believe that 8-4-2-b-1 as referenced here applies to this case play. The ball was not declared dead beyond the NZ and B is always eligible to recover a ball loose from a kick. The bat by B was backward toward B's own EZ, also legal. Since B has touched a kick that has crossed the NZ (the bat), then A is eligible to recover the ball. Since the recovery by A was both legal and in the EZ the result of the play is TD. I don't see any contradictions here, but maybe I'm missing something?

RicFlairWoo · « **Reply #8 on:** October 12, 2011, 02:33:48 PM »

After B's bat, did the ball become grounded in B's endzone prior to A's recovery?

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #9 on:** October 12, 2011, 02:36:49 PM »

The original post says that "The ball is caught by A-80 in B's endzone." so I take that to mean that it did not touch the ground.

Welpe · « **Reply #10 on:** October 12, 2011, 02:40:46 PM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on October 12, 2011, 02:32:49 PM

Why does 6-3-3 conflict with this?

6-3-3. When a scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone touches a player of the receiving team who is inbounds, any player may catch or recover the ball (Rule 6-3-1-b) (Exceptions: Rules 6-3-4 and 6-5-1-b).

I don't believe that 8-4-2-b-1 as referenced here applies to this case play. The ball was not declared dead beyond the NZ and B is always eligible to recover a ball loose from a kick. The bat by B was backward toward B's own EZ, also legal. Since B has touched a kick that has crossed the NZ (the bat), then A is eligible to recover the ball. Since the recovery by A was both legal and in the EZ the result of the play is TD. I don't see any contradictions here, but maybe I'm missing something?

According to the new wording of 8-4-2-b-1, the ball would still belong to B since this is a field goal.

Andrew McCarthy · « **Reply #11 on:** October 12, 2011, 03:40:13 PM »

Quote from: Diablo on October 12, 2011, 01:52:14 PM

In the 2009-10 book the passage reads:
After an unsuccessful field goal attempt that has crossed the neutral
zone, the ball will next be put in play by Team B. If the ball is untouched
by Team B after having crossed the neutral zone and is subsequently
declared dead beyond the neutral zone, Team B will next snap it at the
previous spot, or extra-period rules govern. If the previous spot was
between Team B’s 20-yard line and the goal line, Team B will next
snap the ball on or between the inbounds lines at its 20-yard line, or
extra-period rules govern.

I think the part I've noted in bold is a significant change. Isn't it saying that once an unsuccessful FG attempt crosses the NZ there's no way A can get the ball? Last year A could get the ball if B touched it beyond the NZ.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #12 on:** October 12, 2011, 04:18:14 PM »

But the 2011-2012 wording requires that the ball be "declared dead", and is no longer automatically dead as it was in the 2009-2010 rules. In the case play the ball stayed live thru the A recovery in the EZ.

This was one of those "not so subtle" wording changes that was not "gray highlighted" in the new book, but it is a change.

BankerRef · « **Reply #13 on:** October 12, 2011, 04:37:09 PM »

Quote from: Andrew McCarthy on October 12, 2011, 03:40:13 PM

I think the part I've noted in bold is a significant change. Isn't it saying that once an unsuccessful FG attempt crosses the NZ there's no way A can get the ball? Last year A could get the ball if B touched it beyond the NZ.

The new wording within 8-4-2-b still says A can gain possession if B touches the ball beyond the neutral zone (not the block). If you take the new wording literally it would be in direct conflict with 6-3-3. Since the old wording was clearly consistent with 6-3-3 and there was no indication from on high that the intent of this rule changed in any way with the rewording I would continue to officiate this as before.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #14 on:** October 12, 2011, 06:04:18 PM »

The new 8-4-2-b simply says that the ball stays live once it's crossed the NZ, and 6-3-3 simply says that any player (either team) can recover if B touches the ball after the kick has subsequently crossed the NZ. The only "change" that I see is that the ball is no longer dead by rule if it touches the ground beyond the NZ before being touched by a B player.

On this case play we have a "missed" FG (blocked behind the NZ) that then crossed the NZ, after which B touched the ball (the bat) making it legal for either team to recover.

Exactly where do we have a conflict between the two rules in the 2011-2012 book?

Welpe · « **Reply #15 on:** October 12, 2011, 06:12:40 PM »

Roy where in the previous rules did it say the ball was dead immediately?

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #16 on:** October 12, 2011, 07:46:59 PM »

Was (incorrectly) paraphrasing the following from the 2009-2010 rules 8-4-2-b:

After an unsuccessful field goal attempt that has crossed the neutral zone, the ball will next be put in play by Team B. If the ball is untouched by Team B after having crossed the neutral zone and is subsequently declared dead beyond the neutral zone, Team B will next snap it at the previous spot,

And contrasting it with the new wording from the 2011-2012 rules 8-4-2-b:

When the ball is declared dead beyond the neutral zone and is untouched by Team B beyond the neutral zone, it belongs to Team B.

The point is that the absolute wording that "the ball will next be put in play by Team B" is gone in the new rule and since B in fact did touch it, it's a free ball.

I don't any "direct conflict" in the new rule with 2-3-3? Where is that "conflict"?

Hawkeye · « **Reply #17 on:** October 12, 2011, 08:28:03 PM »

The conflict is this:

The way 8-4-2-b was reworded, it now says that team A may not get legal possession of the ball unless team B actually touches the ball while the ball is beyond the NZ. Prior to 2011, the wording was in accordance with 6-3-3 and supported the idea that if the team B touch occurred after the ball had gone beyond the NZ, no matter where in the field of play the touch occurred, then it would belong to the team in possession at the end of the down.

That being said: The bottom line on Play #2 is that everyone in the world is expecting that to be a touchdown, and that is the way it should be called. I will hang my hat on 6-3-3 and 6-3-6-a and say that team A is in legal possession of the ball in the endzone ...

Kalle · « **Reply #18 on:** October 13, 2011, 05:10:21 AM »

Well, quite a few people expected that fake punt to have resulted in a TD but the coaches didn't want it to...

Again, I'm going with the more specific rule trumping the more general one. Rule 6-3-3 deals with all scrimmage kicks and rule 8-4-2-b with field goal attempts. As 8-4-2-b is the more specific here, I can only assume that the coaches have wanted this changed (do note that until this year both rules said the same thing, why the clear language change if there is no rule change?), unless RR says otherwise.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #19 on:** October 13, 2011, 05:39:54 AM »

Sometimes it takes awhile for the lights to go on!

So the "conflict" is the change from crossed the NZ to untouched by team B beyond the NZ? Don't we treat a scrimmage kick that's "crossed the NZ", as being beyond the NZ for the purpose of determining who can legally touch and or possess the ball? Is the concept that on a scrimmage kick the NZ "disappears" once the kick touches anything beyond the NZ and that the kick is then considered "beyond the NZ" not a valid one?

Hawkeye · « **Reply #20 on:** October 13, 2011, 07:52:49 AM »

Quote from: Kalle on October 13, 2011, 05:10:21 AM

Well, quite a few people expected that fake punt to have resulted in a TD but the coaches didn't want it to...

Again, I'm going with the more specific rule trumping the more general one. Rule 6-3-3 deals with all scrimmage kicks and rule 8-4-2-b with field goal attempts. As 8-4-2-b is the more specific here, I can only assume that the coaches have wanted this changed (do note that until this year both rules said the same thing, why the clear language change if there is no rule change?), unless RR says otherwise.

I don't believe coaches vote on editorial changes. I believe that in an effort to simplify the language in 8-4-2-b, RR created an unintended conflict.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #21 on:** October 13, 2011, 08:19:30 AM »

Quote from: Hawkeye on October 13, 2011, 07:52:49 AM

I don't believe coaches vote on editorial changes. I believe that in an effort to simplify the language in 8-4-2-b, RR created an unintended conflict.

So we're saying to address this "conflict" that the simplified wording should be more like "When the ball is declared dead beyond the neutral zone and is untouched by Team B after crossing ~~beyond~~ the neutral zone". Would that eliminate the problem?