CFO Play Bulletin 3

[TXMike]

Bulletin 3 attached

Seems many of us have been misinterpreting the tinted shield rule.

#3 is a bit "disconcerting"

[attachment deleted by admin]

[Andrew McCarthy]

I wish #2 would have had him pointing to the ball up in the air without waving.

[TXMike]

Will not be long before the defensive line will be restricted from moving once the snapper is established

[El Macman]

#3 - This is a rule change. Effectively, Team B may not call defensive signals with a player move. This is a rule change, no matter how you slice it. Team B has not been prohibitied from calling defensive signals, as  long as the defensoive signals did not simulate the offensive signals. This ruling effrectively says that it doesn't make any diffference what kind of signal Team B calls - if they also shift and it causes an A lineman to react, that's disconcerting signals. Rule change.


*#10 Never mind - I knee jerked when I started reading and didn't read closely. Yeah, no brainer. A simple carry of the ball from the field of play to the end zone where the ball becomes dead - safety.*
 

[ajv]

#10. Well, here it finally is. The rule change that I was afraid would happen on Day 1 of the RR era.

I'm not sure that #10 is telling us anything we didn't know. Apart from the kick getting muffed in the end zone and ending up in the field of play, what really happens is that A22 possesses the ball at the one-foot line and as he takes a knee carries it back into the end-zone where it becomes dead.

[NVFOA_Ump]

#10. Well, here it finally is.  .......

What am I missing here?  This is a simple player recovers a loose ball outside his EZ, at the 1/2 yard line, and then with both possession and control intentionally carries it back into his own EZ where he then takes a knee.  What does this case play have to do with the previous impetus?  Once he possesses the ball in the field of play the whole impetus discussion becomes moot.

[El Macman]

What am I missing here?  This is a simple player recovers a loose ball outside his EZ, at the 1/2 yard line, and then with both possession and control intentionally carries it back into his own EZ where he then takes a knee.  What does this case play have to do with the previous impetus?  Once he possesses the ball in the field of play the whole impetus discussion becomes moot.

Nothing. I misread and knee-jerked. Simple safety. No issue.

[El Macman]

#10. Well, here it finally is. The rule change that I was afraid would happen on Day 1 of the RR era.

I'm not sure that #10 is telling us anything we didn't know. Apart from the kick getting muffed in the end zone and ending up in the field of play, what really happens is that A22 possesses the ball at the one-foot line and as he takes a knee carries it back into the end-zone where it becomes dead.

You are correct. I misread the play and knee-jerked. Simple safety.

[James]

I'm not so keen on #4 - we have to establish intent now... Is the A player blocking, or trying to get to the ball.

I guess we already have that with blocking in the back to get to a loose ball, but #4 doesn't sit comfortably as I read it.

Just wondering about #10 - the play seems more likely that B22 would do this than an A player muffing a punt on their own goal line, right? It doesn't have any bearing on the issue which is a safety either way, but if it was an A player, they would have been responsible for the ball being in the EZ either time, so it is moot. If it is a B player, they are not responsible the first time, so there is a difference, and a reason to write it.