2012 Play Situations Bulletin #1

[TXMike]

Attached

Looks like the 1 yard rectangle/semi-circle question is answered.  It is a rectangle

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Hondo]

So let me see if I understand this
1  In front, but early, no foul.
 2. To the side and causes a reaction, foul
3. In the front,  as catch is made, foul
4. At the side without reaction, no foul.

From a philosophy standpoint the semicircle still makes most since. Very seldom is the kick returner standing completely  still, and the odds of a gunner being to the side (ie modified halo) and not causing a reaction or not having been in the rectangle are slim. 

[El Macman]

So let me see if I understand this
1  In front, but early, no foul.
 2. To the side and causes a reaction, foul
3. In the front,  as catch is made, foul
4. At the side without reaction, no foul.

Don't get me wrong I understand the ruling. But it is going to be fun explaining these.

The only thing that changed is a kicking team player in or passing throuigh the 1-yard box while the receiver is in position to make the catch (also meaning the ball is well on it's downward flight). This should dispel the 180 arc myth. Yes, the receiver has 180 degrees worth of protection, just by two different rules, with two different sets of criteria. In the 1-yard box in front of the receiver – foul – no reaction by the receiver or judgment by the official required. Outside the 1-yard box, the official has to make a judgment, and any ‘adjustment’ the receiver has to make as a result of  the presence of the opponent pretty much guarantees a flag. A clean catch - no foul.

[Hondo]

Sorry, Mac I edited my post during your response.   

[SanDiegoStryker]

#5, hm. I thought the rule text said, "other than as a the direct result of a foul by an opponent." I was thinking that a dead ball foul like this would count and the player who lost his helmet would not have to sit out. Now it seems that they are specifying only "helmet fouls." Good to know!

[El Macman]

#11 is very troubling.
Scenario: Texas 24, Alabama 20. All T/O's exhausted (both teams). 0:18, 4th period. Tide, 2/10, on the Horns 30. Tide all-world QB is flushed from the pocket and advances to the B-25. As he is going down, his helmet comes off (no foul). 0:09 on the game clock when the officials stop the clock for the apparernt helmet-comes-off. Holy crap. Star QB will have to sit out 3rd down. Assistant coach for Tide yells at right guard, "Go down! Go Down!" Right guard obediently falls to the ground in "obvious" agony. No one on the crew sees the RG flop, so they have no choice but to assume he was hurt during the play (not sure that matters, though). By "interpretation," the right guard goes out for a play (per the injury rule), but star QB stays in the game. with no 10-second subtraction. QB throws a TD pass on the next play, and Mack Brown gets fired for losing to an SEC team.
All you SEC folks say 'yea.' All you B12 folks say 'boo.' That ain't the point. It could be anybody, but such a scenario would raise a stink, eh?

 

[justaLJ]

The 10-second subtraction may be off due to the "injury", but the star QB would still have to leave the game for his helmet coming off.

[Hawkeye]

I agree, #11 does not say that the helmet off player stays in the game, it simply clarifies that the play clock would be 40 (defensive injury) and there is no 10 sec runoff because the helmet was not the ONLY reason the clock stopped.

[El Macman]

Well, there you go - the real value of this discussion board. I erroneously read it to mean the injury trumped the helmet off altogether. Glad to get corrected on that one, at least with respect to the player having to sit out the next down. His team can still sureptitiously avoid the 10-second subtraction, though. In the example I gave, that might still be the difference in a win and a loss (for somebody).

[ref6983]

Well, there you go - the real value of this discussion board. I erroneously read it to mean the injury trumped the helmet off altogether. Glad to get corrected on that one, at least with respect to the player having to sit out the next down. His team can still sureptitiously avoid the 10-second subtraction, though. In the example I gave, that might still be the difference in a win and a loss (for somebody).

#11 stipulates A22's helmet comes off and B is injured, thus the ruling makes since as the clock would have stopped anyway for B's action.

It's quite a stretch to think that the ruling for #11 would also apply if it were a teammate of A22 who falls to the ground well after the play. In your play given above, 10 second runoff, game over.

Even if the teammate is injured at the end of the down, I would still run 10, since A would gain quite an advantage. I wouldn't be surprised if next year the 10 second runoff is extended to injuries under 1 minute.

[Andrew McCarthy]

I think it's a stretch to say that we're stopping the clock for the injury in this case. If a player loses his helmet during the down we stop the clock at the end of the down. For an injury we usually give the player a couple seconds before stopping the clock to make sure he is in fact injured, not wanting to have to send him out unnecessarily.