RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: El Macman on May 31, 2012, 07:47:08 PM
-
According to the CFO web site (in a message from RR), the 2012 CFO exam becomes available tomorrow (June 1).
2012 is getting nigh.
-
Anyone have a key for this yet? :bOW
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Here is the test. Don't have a key.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
I got through #50 today making rules references along the way.
-
How many of you are going to accept RR's challenge?
"I encourage you to meet my challenge of scoring 90% or higher (there are 100 questions) in a self-imposed “closed book” test."
-
#22: Did I read somewhere where that we do not have a formation foul if the free kick result is a touchback? I can not find a reference on paper, so maybe I am thinking about the wedge.
-
#22: Did I read somewhere where that we do not have a formation foul if the free kick result is a touchback? I can not find a reference on paper, so maybe I am thinking about the wedge.
I believe it is the wedge you are thinking about.
-
Just for the wedge.
-
#22: Did I read somewhere where that we do not have a formation foul if the free kick result is a touchback? I can not find a reference on paper, so maybe I am thinking about the wedge.
I think what theyre focusing on is the new rule about "one FOOT must be on the 30." We were told in our regional clinic by Tommy Moore(i believe) that this exact scenario was asked of Dr. Redding. We were told that it literally is ONE FOOT, so this is a formation foul under the new rule.
Just got to #35 and all the options have 1/10? Shouldn't it be 1/20?
-
I think what theyre focusing on is the new rule about "one FOOT must be on the 30." We were told in our regional clinic by Tommy Moore(i believe) that this exact scenario was asked of Dr. Redding. We were told that it literally is ONE FOOT, so this is a formation foul under the new rule.
Just got to #35 and all the options have 1/10? Shouldn't it be 1/20?
I thought the same too about #35.
-
TxSkyBolt, I sent you a message in your in box. I was needing some help on some questions.
-
CFO 2012 Test.
A, 4/10 @ B-15... The Team A runner is at the B-9 when the defender pulls him to the
ground with a horse-collar tackle. The runner fumbles prior to being ruled down and a
teammate recovers the loose ball and scores.
A. Touchdown; horse-collar penalty is declined.
B. Touchdown; horse-collar penalty is enforced on the try or succeeding kickoff.
I don't see a correct answer here.
Best regards,
Brad
-
On the exam copy that I have #45 starts with "A, 3/10 @ B-15..." so it's not a 4th down play. If it's really a 4th down play then you are correct that the answer is not there.
If it's a 4th down play the answer would be A's ball, 1st and goal, ball at the B 4-1/2.
-
Apparently there was a revised version after I downloaded mine that changes the down to 3rd.
-
There have been changes to 5 questions since the first version:
35. The selections have changes:
"A. A 1/20 @ B-25; snap"
B. no change, but I suspect we'll see this changed to 1/20 as well
"C. A 1/22 @ B-27; snap"
"D. A 1/22 @ B-27; ready for play"
45. Changed to "A, 3/10 @ B-15 ...", without this change, there is no correct answer presented
55. Changed to "A 3/Goal @ B-4 ...", no real change here.
60. Selection C changed
"C. Not Reviewable - recovery of a loose ball in the field of play"
92. Selections B and C changed
"B. B, 1/10 @ 40", we'll probably see another change to this and clarify it as the A-40
"C. B, 1/10 @ A-38"
-
How about this one...misprint?
30. Team B intercepts a pass at the B-3 and momentum takes him into his own end zone.
Attempting to run the ball out of the end zone, the Team B runner fumbles the ball from
the end zone into the field of play. The loose ball is muffed back into the end zone where
Team B recovers while on the ground.
A. Touchback; B, 1/10 @ B-20
B. Momentum; B, 1/10 @ B-2
C. Safety; 2-points for Team A.
-
How about this one...misprint?
30. Team B intercepts a pass at the B-3 and momentum takes him into his own end zone.
Attempting to run the ball out of the end zone, the Team B runner fumbles the ball from
the end zone into the field of play. The loose ball is muffed back into the end zone where
Team B recovers while on the ground.
A. Touchback; B, 1/10 @ B-20
B. Momentum; B, 1/10 @ B-2
C. Safety; 2-points for Team A.
That play has been kicked around on this board. The correct answer is there.
-
How about this one...misprint?
30. Team B intercepts a pass at the B-3 and momentum takes him into his own end zone.
Attempting to run the ball out of the end zone, the Team B runner fumbles the ball from
the end zone into the field of play. The loose ball is muffed back into the end zone where
Team B recovers while on the ground.
A. Touchback; B, 1/10 @ B-20
B. Momentum; B, 1/10 @ B-2
C. Safety; 2-points for Team A.
2011 play interpretations #4
Fumble in End Zone Following Interception
2. Third and five at the B-20. Defensive back B44 intercepts a forward pass at the B-3 and his momentum carries him into his end zone. While still in the end zone he fumbles the ball. It rolls forward, goes into the field of play, and in the scramble the ball goes back into the end zone (a) where B44 recovers. He is tackled in the end zone; (b) and over the end line. RULING: Safety, two points for Team A, in both (a) and (b). The impetus for the ball returning to the end zone following the interception and the fumble is B44's fumble. The scramble to recover the ball does not add new impetus. The momentum rule does not apply because the ball did not remain in the end zone. (8-5-1, 8-7)
-
That play has been kicked around on this board. The correct answer is there.
I see the Editorial Change on FR-7, and don’t doubt the change and that C is the correct answer, but what does this mean?:
“This includes a fumble that goes from the end zone into the field of play and out of bounds”
The two statements appear to contradict each other.
Could you link the thread this was discussed in?
-
2011 play interpretations #4
Fumble in End Zone Following Interception
2. Third and five at the B-20. Defensive back B44 intercepts a forward pass at the B-3 and his momentum carries him into his end zone. While still in the end zone he fumbles the ball. It rolls forward, goes into the field of play, and in the scramble the ball goes back into the end zone (a) where B44 recovers. He is tackled in the end zone; (b) and over the end line. RULING: Safety, two points for Team A, in both (a) and (b). The impetus for the ball returning to the end zone following the interception and the fumble is B44's fumble. The scramble to recover the ball does not add new impetus. The momentum rule does not apply because the ball did not remain in the end zone. (8-5-1, 8-7)
Great find. I think this emphasizes the wording for 8-5-1 Exception (aka the momemtum rule).
8-5-1 Exceptions:
It is not a safety if a player between his five-yard line and his goal line:
1. Intercepts a pass or fumble; or recovers an opponent’s fumble or
backward pass; or catches or recovers a kick; and
2. His original momentum carries him into his own end zone; and
3. The ball remains behind his goal line (emphasis by me) and is declared dead in his team’s
possession there. This includes a fumble that goes from the end zone into
the field of play and out of bounds (Rule 7-2-4-b-1).
If conditions 1-3 are satisfied above, the ball belongs to this player’s
team at the spot where he gained possession.
Since all 3 were not met, you cannot have momemtum and therefore B is responsible for the ball being in their EZ in their possession.
-
Sonof,
The apparent contradiction you noted is not a contradiction. This statement is there to account for the forward fumble rule. If all other conditions for the mom ex are met and there is a forward fumble by B that goes into the FOP and OOB beyond the GL, we will bring the ball back into the spot of the fumble (in the EZ). This puts momentum back in play.
It may help to look at it this way - if a live ball returns to the EZ after a fumble the mom ex is gone; if a dead ball is returned to the EZ due to forward fumble rule then mom ex is still in effect. Or ask yourself, the last time a live ball crossed the goal line was momentum in effect and does the dead ball still belong to B in B's end zone?
-
I see the Editorial Change on FR-7, and don’t doubt the change and that C is the correct answer, but what does this mean?:
“This includes a fumble that goes from the end zone into the field of play and out of bounds”
The two statements appear to contradict each other.
Could you link the thread this was discussed in?
http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=8562.25
Towards the end.
-
B put it in B has to get it out!? ???
-
Sonof,
The apparent contradiction you noted is not a contradiction.
Yep, I was thinking of two separate plays and combining them in one.
Thanks for the help.
-
How many of you are going to accept RR's challenge?
"I encourage you to meet my challenge of scoring 90% or higher (there are 100 questions) in a self-imposed “closed book” test."
If this thread is any indication, apparently not many!
-
#25!!!! I'm debating the answer to this question with a few guys based on the 2012 Rule Change. I have NO FOUL. But, some guys say it's still a foul.
Thoughts?
-
#25!!!! I'm debating the answer to this question with a few guys based on the 2012 Rule Change. I have NO FOUL. But, some guys say it's still a foul.
Thoughts?
I have no foul. The new rule states in front, shoulders, not side.
-
I took - and passed - Mr. Redding's challenge, so I will now weigh in on some of these questions.
#25 is, indeed, a BS question - one of the ones graded incorrect on my answers. Like y'all, I ruled no foul, because, lacking any evidence of impediment to the receiver, I gave the benefit of question to the flyer. Muffing the ball is not an absolute indication of interference. If the question had indicated that the receiver flinched, or moved to avoid the flyer, then we'd easily have KCI.
However, appareantly they are looking for a ruling of KCI. A) B, 1/10, B-45.
-
I had no foul as well for exactly that reason. The question stated he was in the "safe zone" according to the new rule and it didnt mention that him being there CAUSED the muff which, of course, has been the rule all along. We were instructed during the regional clinic that the old halo rule has made a bit of a comeback and there's now a "Half-halo" rule :angel:. I didnt read this as the defender was inside that area.
-
#80!!!!!
I have deduced after taking the test several times and missing it several times, the answer is D.
If Team B's foul was a dead ball foul, the answer would make sense. But... the question says "during the down". I think the answer has to be that Team A gets a first down due to the live ball personal foul.
What am I missing here????
-
I think I figured it out - PSK enforcement from the end of the kick!!!
-
For #80, I have A.
PSK applies on unsuccessful field goals 10-2-3-b-1 and the PSK spot is define in 2-25-11-Special Case 1.
For this play, the PSK spot is the B-26 (the previous spot) and the foul occurred behind the basic spot, so the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, half the distance. B 1/10 B-9.
The B-12 would be the PSK spot if this were a punt. If the key says D, then I don't understand that ruling.
-
For #80, I have A.
PSK applies on unsuccessful field goals 10-2-3-b-1 and the PSK spot is define in 2-25-11-Special Case 1.
For this play, the PSK spot is the B-26 (the previous spot) and the foul occurred behind the basic spot, so the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul, half the distance. B 1/10 B-9.
The B-12 would be the PSK spot if this were a punt. If the key says D, then I don't understand that ruling.
D is not correct. Your analysis is correct.
-
I did take RR's challenge and did NOT pass the 90 percent goal. Several answers came back as "wrong" which I knew were correct. Retook and the suspect "wrongs" were now correct. Either I "fat fingered" my answers or there is some "tweeking" with the key.
Either way the test is a great review for the season !
-
Regarding #25:
2. Punt receiver B44 is at the B-30 in position to catch a punt. He does not signal for a fair catch. Downfield to cover the kick, A88 passes close to the side of B44 so that he is within one yard and even with but not directly in front of B44 before he touches the ball. B44 does not have to adjust his position and catches the ball. RULING: No foul. A88 does not get in front of B44 and thus is not inside the defined one-yard area before B44 touches the ball. The ball remains alive until B44 is tackled or the ball otherwise becomes dead.
3. Punt receiver B44 is at the B-30 in position to catch a punt. He does not signal for a fair catch. Downfield to cover the kick, A88 passes close to the side of B44 so that he is within one yard and even with but not directly in front of B44 before he touches the ball. B44 must move to one side to get to the ball which he catches or muffs. RULING: Foul for kick-catch interference. A88 has not violated the new rule; but because his presence near B44 causes B44 to adjust his position, A88 has interfered with the opportunity under the rule that has been in place for many years. 15 yards from the spot of the foul, first and 10 for Team B at the B-45.
I still don't see how it is a foul.
-
I'd be willing to bet that 90%+ of guys taking the exam without having seen this question beforehand would answer "no foul." And they would be right and supported by their coordinators.
As RR indicates, this exam isn't used for evaluation purposes, so don't get caught up in numbers.
Regarding #25:
2. Punt receiver B44 is at the B-30 in position to catch a punt. He does not signal for a fair catch. Downfield to cover the kick, A88 passes close to the side of B44 so that he is within one yard and even with but not directly in front of B44 before he touches the ball. B44 does not have to adjust his position and catches the ball. RULING: No foul. A88 does not get in front of B44 and thus is not inside the defined one-yard area before B44 touches the ball. The ball remains alive until B44 is tackled or the ball otherwise becomes dead.
3. Punt receiver B44 is at the B-30 in position to catch a punt. He does not signal for a fair catch. Downfield to cover the kick, A88 passes close to the side of B44 so that he is within one yard and even with but not directly in front of B44 before he touches the ball. B44 must move to one side to get to the ball which he catches or muffs. RULING: Foul for kick-catch interference. A88 has not violated the new rule; but because his presence near B44 causes B44 to adjust his position, A88 has interfered with the opportunity under the rule that has been in place for many years. 15 yards from the spot of the foul, first and 10 for Team B at the B-45.
I still don't see how it is a foul.
-
While the officially 'correct' answer (for this exam) is that the player in question is "...unrestricted...," that is not 100% true. As of 2012, no player on offense is ever 100% unrestricted in BBW. All offensive players, regardless of position at the snap, are not permitted to BBW toward their goal line, if they are beyond the NZ. So, the truly correct answer to #13 is false. But, if you want to get a "100" on the exam, mark True as the correct answer.
-
Hep me, hep me, I've been hypmotized....
I don't know why #51 is inidicated to be 'reviewable' and/or how the RO can correct the play. Is the foillowing casebook play not the exact play?
87. Possible Returning Inbounds on Kick
Fourth and 7 on the A-23. A80 voluntarily touches a sideline while
running downfield to cover a punt. B45 muffs the punt, and A80
recovers at the B-30 yard line. RULING: Not reviewable.
-
CFO Exam #75 is clearly Running into the Kicker. But, by the description, the kicker also clearly 'flopped,' i.e., simulated being roughed. In this case, since running into will be called, I can understand passing on the Simulating call. But, I have seen a FBS kicker flop when he was just barely grazed by a rusher, and the R passed on the call. The punter even gave the R some grief about not making a call (hard to believe, eh?). The R figured this was just a one time incident, figuring the ever-so-slight incidental contact prompted the punter to flop. Later, the same punter did the same exact thing - flopped, but this time after not being touched at all. The R decided that, since he passed on the call earlier in the game, he needed to stay consistent and pass on this call as well. But, he was furious with himself. If he'd had any idea the punter would try it a second time, he would have flagged him the first time. He was just trying not to interject himself into the game any more than he had to. Or so he thought.
-
I have left this answer blank. I do have a question. Can a kicker simulate roughing if he is run into? The contact is objective, the amount of contact is subjective.
-
Regarding #51- You're using last year's IR casebook. This year's has many significant changes. I think over 30 were pointed out at the recent IR clinic.
-
I have left this answer blank. I do have a question. Can a kicker simulate roughing if he is run into? The contact is objective, the amount of contact is subjective.
AR 9-1-15-V says it would be a foul for simulating, even though Running Into is called. Offsetting fouls.
-
You're using last year's IR casebook. This year's has many significant changes. I think over 30 were pointed out at the recent IR clinic.
Crap - opened the wrong casebook. Thanks for catching that. That's why I was confused. I understand a lot of time was spent talking about fouls that can be created by Replay. I initially answered 'not reviewable,' which was graded incorrect. Then I remembered what I'd been told about such fouls from the Replay clinic, and realized why I missed the question - it is now reviewable, and a foul can be created. Then I started studying the rules and casebook related to this play, and got confused. Outdated casebook. Gonna get rid of that one!
Here's the new supporting case play from the 2012 Casebook:
99. Kicking team player out of bounds
Fourth and 3 on the A-27. Team A’s punt is muffed by B21 at the B-30,
and A23 comes from out of bounds to recover it in the field of play at
the 30. The officials rule that A23 was forced out of bounds by B47 and
legally came back into the field of play. Replays show that there clearly
was no contact between A23 and B47. Ruling: Reviewable play.
Reverse to foul for out-of-bounds player returning to the field of play.
Team A 4-8 on A-22 (Rule 12-3-3-h). In this situation the replay official
cannot rule on the severity of the contact, but if there is indisputable
video evidence that there was no contact then the play is reviewable.
-
Hey guys, let's keep all of the questions and comments relating the the 2012 exam in this single discussion. It's a whole lot easier keeping up with the test in one thread than it is having separate threads for every question.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation. tiphat:
-
Hey guys, let's keep all of the questions and comments relating the the 2012 exam in this single discussion. It's a whole lot easier keeping up with the test in one thread than it is having separate threads for every question.
Thanks in advance for your cooperation. tiphat:
Well, why didn't you say so? Oh, you are! ;D
As Burt Reynolds was once fond of saying, "10-4, good buddy."
-
AR 9-1-15-V says it would be a foul for simulating, even though Running Into is called. Offsetting fouls.
Offsetting is not an option on the test. I am confused.
-
Offsetting is not an option on the test. I am confused.
The AR (and the rule) allow us to make a 'simulating' call. They are obviously expecting us to apply judgment and pass on the call. So, no offsetting.
-
Guys, can you help me on #7 we do not have replay so im not up on it to much. I think C. but I could think A.
7. Team A is behind with 3-seconds remaining in the 4th quarter and the clock running, when the QB spikes the ball to stop the game clock. Following the legal spike, the game clock show 1-second remaining in the 4th quarter.
A. Replay may review and rule time expired.
B. The Team B coach may use his challenge to determine if time expired.
C. The play is neither challengeable by the coach nor reviewable by replay
-
Replay can review to put time back on the clock, but they can not review to take time off. So, in this specific instance, it is not a reviewable situation.
-
Replay can review to put time back on the clock, but they can not review to take time off. So, in this specific instance, it is not a reviewable situation.
While I agree this particular case would not be reviewable (there was no egregious error), your first sentence can't be true.
12-3-6 (in part): "However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the
game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable."
This rule allows time to be taken off the clock as well, and I have been in games where it happened. EXAMPLE: The clock never started at all on this play. It would be reviewable for the RO to review and see how much time should have come off the clock.
-
While I agree this particular case would not be reviewable (there was no egregious error), your first sentence can't be true.
12-3-6 (in part): "However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the
game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable."
This rule allows time to be taken off the clock as well, and I have been in games where it happened. EXAMPLE: The clock never started at all on this play. It would be reviewable for the RO to review and see how much time should have come off the clock.
The door is certainly open to that, but I didn't want to go there, because, honestly, the highest authorities can't (won't) tell you what an egregious error is.
-
58. On a kickoff, Team A tries an onside kick. A Team A Player has his feet at the A-46 when he recovers the ball at the A-44. Officials rule illegal touching.
A. Reviewable – award the ball to Team B.
B. Reviewable – Confirm call on the field.
C. Not Reviewable.
Can someone explain the difference between A and B? If the officials ruled illegal touching then didn't they award the ball to Team B?
-
63. A, 1/10 @ A-20… The Team A QB throws a pass to Tight End at the A-40 near the sideline. The Receiver catches the ball and runs to the 50 where he is tackled. Replays show that the Receiver stepped out of bounds (on his own) at the A-35 before coming back inbounds to catch the pass.
A. Reviewable – Reverse to incomplete.
B. Not Reviewable.
The answer to this (A) is a great pet peeve of mine. The reversal is NOT to an incomplete pass but rather to charge Team A with an illegal touching foul. The difference is that this could offset a Team B foul and we will wind on the ready. Oh, and by the way, the ball continued in play after it was caught- even upon reversal.
I would expect those who write the test would know this.
-
58. On a kickoff, Team A tries an onside kick. A Team A Player has his feet at the A-46 when he recovers the ball at the A-44. Officials rule illegal touching.
A. Reviewable – award the ball to Team B.
B. Reviewable – Confirm call on the field.
C. Not Reviewable.
Can someone explain the difference between A and B? If the officials ruled illegal touching then didn't they award the ball to Team B?
No difference.
-
Help please? #43. Does the snap end when the ball becomes possesed or when it leaves the snappers hands?
-
When it leaves snapper's hand(s) - after that it becomes a backward pass.
-
63. A, 1/10 @ A-20… The Team A QB throws a pass to Tight End at the A-40 near the sideline. The Receiver catches the ball and runs to the 50 where he is tackled. Replays show that the Receiver stepped out of bounds (on his own) at the A-35 before coming back inbounds to catch the pass.
A. Reviewable – Reverse to incomplete.
B. Not Reviewable.
The answer to this (A) is a great pet peeve of mine. The reversal is NOT to an incomplete pass but rather to charge Team A with an illegal touching foul. The difference is that this could offset a Team B foul and we will wind on the ready. Oh, and by the way, the ball continued in play after it was caught- even upon reversal.
I would expect those who write the test would know this.
You're absolutely right... it's not an incomplete pass. Our apologies for missing this when we proofed the test. Our apologies for the error. :P
-
here is one that is.... confusing...
A, 2/10 @ 50... While pass blocking at the 50-yard line, the L-Tackle’s helmet comes off. The L-Tackle runs from the 50 to the 30-yard line and blocks or attempts to block a defender trying to tackle the pass receiver. The ball becomes dead at the B-25. No foul was involved regarding the Tackle’s helmet coming off.
A. A, 2/5 @ B-45; Left Tackle must go out for one play.
B. A, 1/10 @ B-45; Left Tackle must go out for one play.
C. A 1/10 @ B-25; Left Tackle may stay in the game.
from 2012 addendum 3.3.9.c
If the player is not the ball carrier the ball remains alive, but he must not continue to participate
in the play beyond the immediate action in which he is engaged. Prolonged participation is a
personal foul (Rule 9-1-17).
So, I was under the impression that the LT would have participated somewhere along the way between the 50 and the 30 while he was running without his helmet, probably closer to the 50 than the 30 if that matters, but... based on the options for the test, the penalty must be enforced from the 30.
-
here is one that is.... confusing...
from 2012 addendum 3.3.9.c
So, I was under the impression that the LT would have participated somewhere along the way between the 50 and the 30 while he was running without his helmet, probably closer to the 50 than the 30 if that matters, but... based on the options for the test, the penalty must be enforced from the 30.
He isn't expected to 'freeze,' but he can't participate in the play. Running down the field is not participating in the play. But, when he blocked an opponent at the B-30, that became a personal foul AT THAT SPOT, with Basic Spot/3 & 1 enforcement.
We don't exactly have a definition of 'participating' for the purposes of this rule, but one can surmise that if such a player materially affects an opponent, or touches the ball, that would be 'participating.' Materially affecting an opponent may not require contact. But, I don't have anything affirmitive on that - that's just my 'take.'
Hopefully, they'll strap 'em on, and this will be a non-issue.
-
#43 isn't exactly kosher, either.
The QB 'muffs' the ball, and the LG picks it up and ends up grounding the ball downfield in the field of play with no A eiligible in the area. Wellllllll, the exception that allows a passer to legally ground the ball when outside the Tackle Box only applies to the player that "...receives the snap." Welllllll, what does that mean? The QB muffed the snap - he never possessed it. We don't have a definition for "...receives...", but a muff doesn't strike me as qualifying as receipt of the snap. So, when the LG picked up the ball (backward pass loose from the snap), he became the player that received the snap. So, when he got outside the TB and passed the ball across the NZ, it seems like he fulfilled the rquirements of the rule, and legally grounded the ball.
The question isn’t so much flawed as the rule. I believe the Committee is trying to limit legal grounding to the team’s designated QB, without saying so much.
No one is asking my input, but, if that's is their intent, they should just say that, prior to the game, each team has to designate a maximum of two players as their ‘recognized’ default passers. During the game, they can change those ‘recognized’ designations with notification to the R (who then notifies the opponent), but they can still have only a maximum of two at any time. (Maybe they should only be able to change 'recognition' during a charged time-out, or between periods. ?) The ‘recognized’ passers can switch in and out of the game at will, no problem – no further notification needed. Bottom line: Unless the passer is legally ‘recognized’ prior to a play, he is not permitted to legally ground the pass. He could throw a pass, he just can’t legally ground a pass.
I think Rs could deal with that. And, if that is the Committee's intent, it would clean up the rule. Eh?
-
Agreed, I had the same though processes on that question as well.
-
I think they could just change it to say the first player to touch the snap- it would be simple and meet their intent.
-
I see where you're going Macman, and while I applaud the effort to clean up the rule, I think that makes it way too complicated. With the Wildcat offenses, rotating QBs, etc., a team could well have more than three passers. Having to designate two and report others is making a mountain out of a one in ten thousand molehill.
I have covered more than 150 FBS games in the last 12 years (over 22,000 offensive plays), and have never seen a LG (or any interior lineman) throw a pass, legally or illegally. Simply change the rule to say the original back to touch the snap, and your problem is fixed.
-
#43 isn't exactly kosher, either.
The QB 'muffs' the ball, and the LG picks it up and ends up grounding the ball downfield in the field of play with no A eiligible in the area. Wellllllll, the exception that allows a passer to legally ground the ball when outside the Tackle Box only applies to the player that "...receives the snap." Welllllll, what does that mean? The QB muffed the snap - he never possessed it. We don't have a definition for "...receives...", but a muff doesn't strike me as qualifying as receipt of the snap. So, when the LG picked up the ball (backward pass loose from the snap), he became the player that received the snap.
There was a question like this on last year's CFO exam 2011 #43
28. A, 3/2 @ A-12. The QB muffs the snap and the ball rolls back to the A-5. The right guard picks up the ball and throws a pass beyond the line of scrimmage into an area unoccupied by an eligible Team A player. The guard was outside the tackle box when the pass was thrown.
A. A, 4/9 @ A-5
B. A, 4/2 @ A-12
C. A, 4/7 @ A-7
When I took the test last year, it marked B as correct.
However, subsequently in an e-mail between RR and my supervisor, regarding the subject of "player who receives the snap", RR stated that the "player who receives the snap" should be interpreted as the "player for whom the snap is intended". I'm not sure if the key was changed after I took the exam last year or not, but the date of RR's ruling preceded the date I took the exam.
So my problem with a ruling of IG on this play (2012 #43) has nothing to do with the fact that the LG was the player who dumped the ball. My problem with IG on this play is that there is no mention of the LG being under pressure, that is still a requirement isn't it?
-
My problem with IG on this play is that there is no mention of the LG being under pressure, that is still a requirement isn't it?
If he isn't the receiver of the snap, then, correct, he would have to be under pressure to qualify for ING. That wasn't addressed in the question, but 'apparently' he was.
The "...person for whom the snap is intended..." eh? Well, that lends more credence to my presumption that they only want the/an identified QB to have the ability to legally ground the pass. C'mon RR. Put this to rest. Give us a written definition for the receiver of the snap. Please.
-
The "...person for whom the snap is intended..." eh? Well, that lends more credence to my presumption that they only want the/an identified QB to have the ability to legally ground the pass.
Just as not all snappers are not "centers", not all people intened to receive the snap are QBs. Running backs in a wildcat formation, holders on field goals and punters are three notable examples of "persons for whom the snap is intended" who are not "QBs".
Unless the team is running some bizarre fake, the person for whom the snap is intended is pretty clear. If he would codify the rule with just that phrase, I think the problem is fixed.
-
How do we know for whom the snap is intended?
I've seen plays that had a shotgun QB calling signals, then a man in motion runs between the snapper and the QB and takes the snapped ball. As a designed play, the snap was for the motion man, so he is afforded the ability to legally ground the pass - yes? Is that what RR has in mind? If so, how do we, as officials, know for 100% certain that the motion man was the intended receiver? Maybe he just stole the snapped ball on a 'read' of the defense. Maybe the snap was mis-timed, and the motion man just happened to be there and the snapped ball hit him, so he grabbed it and ran.
Legally grounding a pass is probably a crappy concept to begin with. This just makes the mud even deeper and darker.
-
Legally grounding a pass is probably a crappy concept to begin with.
In all honesty, I like the concept and wish the Federation would embrace it. The offense is giving up the down. What's wrong with that?
-
In all honesty, I like the concept and wish the Federation would embrace it. The offense is giving up the down. What's wrong with that?
What's wrong is that the defense did their job, left the QB no good place to throw the ball, flushed him out of the pocket, and instead of getting the sack they earned, all the QB has to do it get the ball past the LOS and he gets away with avoiding the loss.
-
How do we know for whom the snap is intended?
I've seen plays that had a shotgun QB calling signals, then a man in motion runs between the snapper and the QB and takes the snapped ball. As a designed play, the snap was for the motion man, so he is afforded the ability to legally ground the pass - yes? Is that what RR has in mind? If so, how do we, as officials, know for 100% certain that the motion man was the intended receiver? Maybe he just stole the snapped ball on a 'read' of the defense. Maybe the snap was mis-timed, and the motion man just happened to be there and the snapped ball hit him, so he grabbed it and ran.
Legally grounding a pass is probably a crappy concept to begin with. This just makes the mud even deeper and darker.
For the once every ten years that we see this play, I'll live with that motion man not getting protection for grounding the ball.
We already use the concept when we talk about a player with his knee on the ground and a player "in position" to kick the ball. What's "in position to kick"? It's something that the referee gets to judge, rather than have a 400 page rulebook where every nuance is defined.
In position to take the snap means the player directly behind the snapper, with no one in between, for either a hand to hand or backward pass exchange. It's not that tough. 99+% of the time, it is easy to determine, and for that other tenths of a percentage, too bad, he wasn't obviously in position to take the snap, he gets no protection, just like the RG that picks up the bothched snap gets no protection.
Soon, we'll be debating what "is" is!
And yes, I agree 100%, doing away with legal grounding would be even better.
-
Free kick receiver has a foot touching the sideline when he secures the previously untouched kicked ball. He advances to the B-15 where he is tackled by the facemask.
OK, he's OB, which makes the kick an illegal kick OB. The facemask is a foul, even though the ball is dead. So, A has two fouls, KOB, for which, B elects to take the ball 30 yards from the PS, putting the ball at the B-35. Then penalize the dead-ball FMM, taking the ball to the 50.
But what about a possible delay by the receiver? Well, the rule says "deliberately advancing the ball after it is dead." I suppose if he isn't aware that he stepped on the sideline, that makes his advance not "deliberate."
-
sorry if this one has been discussed somewhere - #56 (among others) is giving me a headache. I realize the question is almost the same as Play #87 in the IR Case Book, but what about 12-3-3-d - which seems to be in dispute with the stated reasoning in Play #87? Doesn't 12-3-3-d-1 and 2 imply that this play can be reviewed as 12-3-3-d-1 states "If the ball is ruled dead and the replay official does not have IVE as to which team recovered, the dead ball ruling stands."
What am I missing?
-
sorry if this one has been discussed somewhere - #56 (among others) is giving me a headache. I realize the question is almost the same as Play #87 in the IR Case Book, but what about 12-3-3-d - which seems to be in dispute with the stated reasoning in Play #87? Doesn't 12-3-3-d-1 and 2 imply that this play can be reviewed as 12-3-3-d-1 states "If the ball is ruled dead and the replay official does not have IVE as to which team recovered, the dead ball ruling stands."
What am I missing?
If you find what your missing, let us know, because I'm now confused, too (admittedly easy).
-
Good Morning All,
Anyone has the answer key out yet? :) It's always nice to get others options to compare answers to. FlAg1
-
Question #75
A, 4/6 @ A-35… From a scrimmage kick formation Team A punts the ball. Just after kicking the ball the Defense runs into the Kicker’s kicking leg before he can return it to the ground. This contact causes the Kicker to flop onto the ground in an attempt to show he was roughed. The punt is downed at the B-15.
a.A, 4/1 @ A-40 or B, 1/10 @ B-15
b.B, 1/10 @ B-30
Rule 9-1-16b says that "A kicker..simulating being roughed or run into by a defensive player commits an unsportsmanlike act.
PENALTY - 15 yards from the PREVIOUS SPOT"
35-15 = 20, so why is it not 4/21 from A20 if that's the only call you've got. Wouldnt the most correct answer here be offsetting live ball fouls and replay the down?
-
Since there was actually contact, we will only throw the team B foul for running into the kicker, and tell the punter to get up and stop acting!
I would not endorse making a 9-1-16-b call, but sternly warn the punter that if he does it again, he will get a flag. Although, this is a test question and if it were described in a a way that there was no contact, my guess is that they would be looking to make the call on the punter.
-
Does anyone have the answer key they can post?
I am not an CFO official but I want to learn the rules and mechanics for when I try to make the jump.
-
CB,
I'd recommend downloading the NCAA rule book and IR book (both free PDFs) available on the NCAA website and take the test open book. If you have any particular questions, ask here. I think that's way more valuable than having the key. Just my opinion. Best of luck in your quest
Brad
-
Hi Brad,
Thank you for your feedback and I will take your advice and do it just say you suggest.