RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: NJOfficial on July 27, 2015, 08:39:48 PM
-
K is punting, and R roughs the punter. While the kick is rolling K blocks R in the back. R returns the kick fumbles and K recovers and runs to K 10.
-
Either off-set the fouls and replay or enforce the K BIB from either end of the kick or spot of the foul. The play is not very specific as to where the foul occurred.
-
Either off-set the fouls and replay or enforce the K BIB from either end of the kick or spot of the foul. The play is not very specific as to where the foul occurred.
This has to be a double foul, and they offset. K is in final possession, but fouled prior to gaining possession. This is described in 10-2-1b.
-
PSK?
-
PSK?
Can't be PSK for a number of reasons:
1. The foul on R was roughing the punter, which is never a PSK foul.
2. The second foul (which we believe came while the ball was loose) was by K, which can never be PSK.
3. K would be the next to put the ball in play.
This is a plain old double foul. Replay the down.
-
A scrimmage kick without a new series occurring = clock starts on RFP....
UNLESS:
(1)
(2)
Who's got the answers ??? ??? ???
PS : If time expired during the down, an untimed down would be allowed.
-
3rd down scrimmage kick by K, blocked by R in the expanded neutral zone, rebounds behind the neutral zone, recovered by K who then throws an incomplete forward pass or runs the ball ending up out of bounds short of the LTG. Clock starts on the snap.
-
A scrimmage kick without a new series occurring = clock starts on RFP....
UNLESS:
(1) Kick out of bounds
(2) Touchback
Who's got the answers ??? ??? ???
PS : If time expired during the down, an untimed down would be allowed.
-
Wouldn't either a kick out of bounds or a touchback result in a new series being awarded to R?
-
Ump33, you win the Kewpie doll aWaRd. I had intended (1) to be OOB or TB but wasn't clear. Listing them separately now leaves a 3rd situation.
-
Wouldn't either a kick out of bounds or a touchback result in a new series being awarded to R?
Not in the OP, as the double foul replays the down. Again, my fault for not specifying reference to the OP. Must be nearing time for me to go home and walk ma' hunting dawg :).
-
Thanks! That clears it up. I thought that I either misunderstood the question or that I misunderstood the answer. Apparently I misunderstood BOTH!
-
Ump33, you win the Kewpie doll aWaRd. I had intended (1) to be OOB or TB but wasn't clear. Listing them separately now leaves a 3rd situation.
Still a' looking for that 3rd situation. Hint: IMHO, this situation should have been removed in 1996.
-
Still a' looking for that 3rd situation. Hint: IMHO, this situation should have been removed in 1996.
The returner runs out of bounds? Touchdown? Fair Catch?
-
Or as unlikely as it is result of play is safety. So basically we are saying any major clock stopper
-
Or just to pile on the penalties the returner throws an incomplete illegal pass
-
aWaRd Kewpie Doll for Bossman. Clock always starts on snap after a fair catch. Rationale : if R called for a fair catch and chose to free kick, the clock should start as on the kick,not the RFP. IMHO, rationale became defunct in 1996 when rule changed to snap on all COPs.
Why:
Isn't 3-4-3j removed ????
The NL not adopt the DH ??? ????
Brady throw his telephone away ??? ??? ????
....So many questions...so few answers..... :( :o ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D
-
Rationale : if R called for a fair catch and chose to free kick, the clock should start on the kick, not the RFP.
But since it's a free kick, it doesn't start on the kick, it starts when the kick is touched (other than first touching)
Why:
Isn't 3-4-3j removed ????
It's probably not needed anymore. If there isn't going to be a change of possession, do we really need to wait for the snap?
The NL not adopt the DH ??? ????
The more important question is, why has the AL kept it? It ain't baseball!
Brady throw his telephone away ??? ??? ????
I think we all know the answer to that one.
-
But since it's a free kick, it doesn't start on the kick, it starts when the kick is touched (other than first touching) It should have been "as a kick"-my bad.
/glow]
It's probably not needed anymore. If there isn't going to be a change of possession, do we really need to wait for the snap? A few years after the COP timing change ,we had K with a 6 man line (11 man football) and a booming kick that was fair caught. After measuring off K's penalty, I started the clock on RFP. It was much later that I realized I shouldn't have had. I owe the Brewer vs Hampden game of 1998 probably 10-12 more seconds. I've yet to pay them back.
The more important question is, why has the AL kept it? It ain't baseball! I used to enjoy watching chestmasters think before their next move. I never enjoyed watching a manager think as to if it was time to bat for the pitcher.
I think we all know the answer to that one.
His battery ran out?
-
Or as unlikely as it is result of play is safety. So basically we are saying any major clock stopper
I should has said : "Any play that ends OOB or in either EZ" to cover the many possible situations ...and ,yes, an IFP after COP would also do it! tiphat:
-
The more important question is, why has the AL kept it? It ain't baseball!
This. When the AL adopted the DH in 1973, it was supposed to be a one-year only experiment.
-
aWaRd Kewpie Doll for Bossman. Clock always starts on snap after a fair catch. Rationale : if R called for a fair catch and chose to free kick, the clock should start as on the kick,not the RFP. IMHO, rationale became defunct in 1996 when rule changed to snap on all COPs.
Why:
Isn't 3-4-3j removed ????
The NL not adopt the DH ??? ????
Brady throw his telephone away ??? ??? ????
....So many questions...so few answers..... :( :o ??? ::) :P :-[ :-X :-\ :-* :'( >:D
Ralph,
I wanted to make this an editorial change (underlined below), but I don't think it's ever gotten though the state.
3-4-3 (Deals with major clock stoppers)
b. B or R is awarded a new series and will next snap the ball.
The reason is this - Play: QB throws interception and Team B player is tackled in bounds. B is called for defensive holding and the down is replayed with Team A retaining the ball.
Some officials would go on the snap here because the interception was (in the way they read the rule) "awarding a new series" (because of the apparent change of possession). This editorial change would clear up any confusion.
-
Excellent point, Bossman, I'll make note of that when the suggestion box (proposed rule/editorial change form) arrives. :thumbup
-
Some officials would go on the snap here because the interception was (in the way they read the rule) "awarding a new series" (because of the apparent change of possession). This editorial change would clear up any confusion.
These are the same officials that say a fumble by A out of B's end zone constitutes a play with a change in possession. They need to learn their definitions!
-
These are the same officials that say a fumble by A out of B's end zone constitutes a play with a change in possession. They need to learn their definitions!
Not to appear overly dense but does your statement refer to A fumbling the ball into and through B's endzone or to A possessing the ball in B's endzone and then "fumbling" it out. The quotation marks referring to the impossibility of fumbling a dead ball
-
Not to appear overly dense but does your statement refer to A fumbling the ball into and through B's endzone or to A possessing the ball in B's endzone and then "fumbling" it out. The quotation marks referring to the impossibility of fumbling a dead ball
The former. I believe the latter would be a touchdown.
-
The former. I believe the latter would be a touchdown.
I agree. Therefore the part about fumbling a dead ball.
-
Help me out here. While technically correct that it's not a COP without a player gaining possession, by definition. Is there a situation that prevents this from being a distinction without a difference. I'm trying to think of a play situation where this matters except maybe stat wise. Maybe I'm just forgetting or missing something.
-
These are the same officials that say a fumble by A out of B's end zone constitutes a play with a change in possession. They need to learn their definitions!
AB- What am I missing here? A fumble by A (from the playing field) out of B's end zone is a TB. B will begin a new series at their own 20 yard line and we will start the clock on the snap. I'm having trouble understanding the point you are trying to make to us.
I do understand that if we have a foul during the fumble, then we have a loose ball play and it is not a change of possession play, maybe that is your point.
-
Help me out here. While technically correct that it's not a COP without a player gaining possession, by definition. Is there a situation that prevents this from being a distinction without a difference. I'm trying to think of a play situation where this matters except maybe stat wise. Maybe I'm just forgetting or missing something.
This was an issue with the OLD roughing the passer enforcement. Enforced from end of the last run when there is no change of possession. So If A fumbles on the B2 through the endzone, RPS is enforced from the B2, since technically there was not a "change of possession."
Under the new rule, this is moot, since we enforce from the dead ball spot. The above play, since it resulted in a touchback, would go from the previous spot.