Football Officiating > Classics

"Hidden" Changes - 2011 NCAA Rules

<< < (20/20)

El Macman:
Immediately below are responses from RR to the two questions that are below his responses
---------------------------------------------------------------------



From: Rogers Redding
Date: July 6, 2011 9:33:57 AM CDT

Subject: Re: Rules Question


Thanks for these questions. 

In the case of UNS fouls on the try:  the questioner is correct that 8-3-3-b-1 covers only personal fouls, and it is probably an oversight that UNS fouls were not included here.  Note that in 10-2-5-a-1 (FR-98) unsportsmanlike conduct fouls are included.  Thus the spirit of the rule would dictate that UNS fouls should also be included along with personal fouls in 8-3-3-b-1. 

Therefore, by interpretation, penalties for live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct fouls by players are to be treated like personal fouls in 8-3-3-b-1.  I will include such a play in the first play situations bulletin of the season.

In the case of roughing the passer, as the questioner says, the intent of the change is to give roughing protection to the QB who grounds the ball or is beyond the neutral zone when he throws a forward pass.  This is a player-safety issue and such a player should not be susceptible to a "free shot" by an opponent.  If it happens after a change of possession or during a kickoff the same logic applies.  It would look odd, no doubt, but such plays happen so seldom that it is not worth making an exception.

Hope this helps!

Take care,
Rog



------------------------------------------------------------
The questions:

Previously, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls that occurred during a down were classified as "live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball fouls," and, when they occurred during a Try,  they could be 'carried over' to the kickoff or succeeding spot with rule 8-3-3-d-2. For 2011, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls that occur during a down are live-ball fouls, so 8-3-3-d-2 no longer covers those fouls during a Try. Currently, 8-3-3-b-1 covers only personal fouls, and not unsportsmanlike conduct fouls. If interpreted strictly, for team A to accept any points on a Try, penalties for live-ball unsportsmanlike conduct fouls would have to be declined.

I'm sure we are still to 'carry-over' penalties for unsportsmanlike conduct fouls during a successful Try to the kickoff or succeeding spot, but the current rule language doesn't seem to cover this. Can you clarify?


The editorial change to 2-27-5 removed the requirement for a pass to be legal for a player to be considered a passer. While this gives roughing-the-passer protection to a QB that intentionally grounds a pass, or throws a pass from beyond the neutral zone, it also would also seem to give protection to a player that throws a forward pass when it is not permitted, such as during a kickoff, or after a change of possession. For example, B33 is returning a kickoff or interception when he tries to pass the ball backward to a teammate, but the pass goes forward, and, after releasing the pass, A77 takes two steps and knocks B33 to the ground. Roughing the passer? Can you clarify?

El Macman:
Y'all take a look at 8-4-2-b (2011), and someone tell me why RR changed it to read like it was before 2003, when John Adams changed it to be completely unambiguous.

Kalle:
Actually, I think the new (old?) 8-4-2-b is better. It includes the possible case where a short kick crosses the neutral zone, bounces back behind the NZ, is touched by team B behind the NZ, and subsequently goes out of bounds beyond the NZ. The 2009 rules don't directly address this issue (and thus it would mean that team B gets the ball at the OOB spot), but the 2011 wording clearly says that the touching by team B is effectively disregarded and the ball belongs to team B at the previous spot (or the B-20).

What's the ambiguity (re)introduced by this change?

El Macman:

--- Quote from: Kalle on July 24, 2011, 03:38:32 PM ---Actually, I think the new (old?) 8-4-2-b is better. It includes the possible case where a short kick crosses the neutral zone, bounces back behind the NZ, is touched by team B behind the NZ, and subsequently goes out of bounds beyond the NZ. The 2009 rules don't directly address this issue (and thus it would mean that team B gets the ball at the OOB spot), but the 2011 wording clearly says that the touching by team B is effectively disregarded and the ball belongs to team B at the previous spot (or the B-20).

What's the ambiguity (re)introduced by this change?

--- End quote ---

The ambiguity is in the fact that B could, indeed, get the ball at the previous spot or the B-20, versus the spot where it went OB. If B touches a scrimmage kick after the ball has crossed the NZ, then they should no longer have the ability to get the ball at the PS or the B-20. If they touch it beyond the NZ, clearly they don't (by old or new rules). But the ambiguity is in why should they be able to get the ball at the PS or B-20 just because the ball happened to rebound behind the former NZ (where they touch it)? Effectively, the NZ no longer exists after a scrimmage kick has crossed the NZ. John Adams affirmed that when he changed the wording in 2003.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[*] Previous page

Go to full version