CFO 2012 Exam

[Wing4Life]

#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?

[Sonofanump]

#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.

[El Macman]

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.

[clearwall]

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 . I didnt read this as the defender was inside that area.

[boydmarq]

#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?

[boydmarq]

I think I figured it out - PSK enforcement from the end of the kick!!!

[Hawkeye]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[RedTD]

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 !

[Sonofanump]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[El Macman]

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. 

[Sonofanump]

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.

[Andrew McCarthy]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[Rulesman]

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. 

[El Macman]

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. 

Well, why didn't you say so?  Oh, you are! 
As Burt Reynolds was once fond of saying, "10-4, good buddy."

[Sonofanump]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[Hanging Judge]

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

[El Macman]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.