Re: Addendum: Fumble into Endzone Question

Right.  And that is just it.  They don't clarify enough in regards to the ball hitting the pylon whether it needs to be in possesion or not, what direction the ball can hit it from, etc. etc.

 

Interestingly, the only plane that exists is the endzone.  This means that if the ball were to be above the out of bounds line, but never touched anything out of bounds, a player could take the ball and recover it, as long as he remains inbounds.

 

Also, the forward progress on a fumble doesn't only apply to a recovery.  It does apply to going out of bounds (since there can be no recovery):

 

c. If a live ball not in player possession crosses a boundary line and then is declared out of bounds, it is out of bounds at the crossing point.   (not at the point at which it lands out of bounds, as this could theoretically be yards ahead of the crossing point.)

 

Here is a link to the interpretations book.  This will come in handy for next season:

http://www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2007/2007_football_rules.pdf

On 12/21/07, Eric Limburg <dmx311@gmail.com> wrote:

I believe that the fumbling forward only applies if you are the team who fumbled and recovers the fumble and it has been advanced.  If the ball were to touch a player of the opposite team after the fumble or say get kicked or pushed in the "advancing" position favoring the team that fumbled it would be spotted in the new "advanced" position due to contact with the other player. 

 

As for as I can interpret from the rules you sent on the ball hitting the pylon issue, the pylon is out of bounds and since the nose of the ball hit the front of the pylon (not the side) on it's way out of bounds (it had already crossed the "out of bounds plane") it would fall under the rule that a loose ball is ruled out of bounds once it hits something that is on the line or out of bounds.  If the pylons, theoretically, were not there and calls were to be judged by video or referee vision (not sure if either one would be better than the other, haha) based soley on planes and the field lines this ball would have never crossed the goal line or the touch down plane.  It was clearly outside of this by the time it hit the pylon and cannot be considered to have gone "out of the back of the endzone" or the "side of the endzone" since it was angled in a direction aleady out of bounds. 

 

By this logic I believe they got the original call correct and with the video evidence accessed the same although they were not able to confirm the call with the video evidence.

 

Now however in contrast citing the case of the Wyoming game when a similar thing happened, the ball (if my memory serves me correctly) hit the inside side of the pylon.  The inside wall of the pylons are in direct correlation with the endzone plane and the out of bounds lines with the rest of the wall surfaces are not.

 

Looks like from this we need laser technology to step in and support both human intelligence and video evidence.

 

On Dec 21, 2007 10:43 AM, Tijs Limburg <tijis311@gmail.com> wrote:

The rulebook also states that a player cannot fumble forward while the player is moving out of bounds.  This is part of the rule to prevent the offense from being able to intentionally fumble forward and recover the ball in the endzone for a touchdown.

 

The ball was clearly moving forward.

 

On 12/21/07, Tijs Limburg <tijis311@gmail.com > wrote:

That fumble call last night looks like it is getting messier.  The officials released a post-game statement saying that the call should have been a touchback.  I looked to see if I could find any info in the rulebook for further enlightenment.

 

Unfortunately, the rulebook is not available online (the NCAA should change this), so I couldn't go directly to the citation the officials gave in their statement.  However, there is a "rules and interpretations" book available from the NCAA online, and so I looked into it.  Below is what the book says on the issue of fumbling out of bounds, and touchbacks.

 

Read Articles 2 and 3 of section 2.  There is obviously a difference between a held ball and a loose ball.  In part b, are they talking about a loose ball hitting the pylon?  If so, then the officials should have ruled it a touchback.  ("behind the goal line" means the same as "crossing the plane"). 

 

 

Here is what the rule book says on fumbles, as cited in the interpretations book:

 

SECTION 2. Out of Bounds

Held Ball Out of Bounds

ARTICLE 2. A ball in player possession is out of bounds when either the

ball or any part of the runner touches the ground or anything else that

is on or outside a boundary line except another player or game official.

Ball Out of Bounds

ARTICLE 3. a. Aball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores

a field goal, is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, a

game official or anything else that is on or outside a boundary line.

b. Aball that touches a pylon is out of bounds behind the goal line.

SECTION 6. Touchback

When Declared

ARTICLE 1. It is a touchback when:

a. The ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line, except from an

incompleted forward pass, or becomes dead in the possession of a player

on, above or behind his own goal line and the attacking team is

responsible for the ball being there (A.R. 6-3-9-IV, A.R. 7-2-4-I, A.R. 8-6-

1-I and II, and A.R. 10-2-2-XXXIX) (Rules 7-2-4-a and b).

b. Akick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team's goal line and

the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there (

Exception:

Rule 8-4-2-b) (A.R. 6-3-4-IV).

c. Aviolation by the kicking team occurs in the receiving team's end zone.

 

SECTION 7. Responsibility and Impetus

 

Responsibility

 

ARTICLE 1. The team responsible for the ball being out of bounds behind

a goal line or being dead in the possession of a player on, above or behind

a goal line is the team whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus

to it that forces it on, above or across the goal line, or is responsible for a

loose ball being on, above or behind the goal line (A.R. 6-3-4-I).

Initial Impetus

ARTICLE 2. a. The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps

or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball's

progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed

after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either

team (A.R. 6-3-4-IV; A.R. 8-5-1-II, III, VIII, IX and XI; and A.R. 8-7-2-IIX).

b. Initial impetus is considered expended and the responsibility for the

ball's progress is charged to a player:

1. If he kicks a ball not in player possession or bats a loose ball after it

strikes the ground (

Exception: The original impetus is not changed

when a loose ball is batted or kicked in the end zone) (A.R. 8-7-2-V).

2. If the ball comes to rest and he gives it new impetus by any contact

with it.

Exceptions:

1. Rules 6-1-4-a and 6-3-4-a (A.R. 6-3-4-I-IV).

2. The original impetus is not changed when a ball at rest in the end

zone is moved when touched by an official or a player.

c. Aloose ball retains its original status when there is new impetus.

Anyway, appearently there have been other issues with officials ruling an "out of bounds plane" (which is not in the rulebook, apparently).  If you google the issue, there are quite a few references to the issue.

 

Looks like the NCAA needs to clarify a little better.

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.

--
Eric Limburg

-President
DMX, Digital Media eXceleron Inc.
www.dmxed.com
-Home Entertainment- -Business IT- -Networks-

-Sound/Recording Engineer
eXceleron Records and DJ Service
www.eXedmusic.com

(801) 938-5DMX office
(801) 633-2239 cell

--
Tijs Limburg
Chairman and CTO of DMX - Digital Media eXceleron, Inc.
Get eXcited!
www.dmxed.com

Blogs:
http://phystrings.blogspot.com/
http://getoutofthedark.blogspot.com/

The "Don't Tread on Me" Flag: The First Navy Jack is enjoying renewed popularity these days thanks to an order from the Secretary of the Navy that directs all U.S. Navy ships to fly the First Navy Jack for the duration of the War on Terrorism.