CFO 2012 Exam

[El Macman]

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.

[Andrew McCarthy]

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?

[Andrew McCarthy]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[Sonofanump]

Help please?  #43.  Does the snap end when the ball becomes possesed or when it leaves the snappers hands?

[jg-me]

When it leaves snapper's hand(s) - after that it becomes a backward pass.

[wlemonnier]

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. 

[fencewire]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[El Macman]

#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?

[fencewire]

Agreed, I had the same though processes on that question as well.

[Andrew McCarthy]

I think they could just change it to say the first player to touch the snap- it would be simple and meet their intent.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[Hawkeye]

#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?

[El Macman]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[El Macman]

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.

[Rulesman]

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?

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[Atlanta Blue]

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.

[El Macman]

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."

[zebra99]

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?

[El Macman]

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).

[robref68]

Good Morning All,

Anyone has the answer key out yet?  It's always nice to get others options to compare answers to.

[clearwall]

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?