ASK THE OFFICIAL: NOVEMBER 2007

November 27, 2007
Ref, your "Ask the Official" is really terrific.  I've been a fan for over 60 years and I'm learning lots that I didn't know.  Just to refresh you on the Landeta fumble (missed kick), it was in the playoff game against the bears in Jan 86, the year before we won our first SB. – Jim V.

Thanks. I thought it was a playoff game but wasn't sure. I just remember watching him miss the kick and one of the announcers wanting it to be an incomplete forward pass. I've seen the same play twice since then, always in  lousy weather.   

November 26, 2007
What is the official ruling for possession of the football in the end zone?  Today's Bears/Broncos' game, the receiver landed on one knee (and no other part of his body touched in the field of play) in the end zone and the rest of his body was clearly out of bounds. And he was not forced out. – Larry D.

I am assuming that you mean a play where the receiver possessed the ball in the air above the end zone and came to the ground with his knee touching in  bounds. In this case, it is a touchdown as the receiver will get credit for the forward advance of the ball at the time that anything other than his hand or foot (in this case, his knee) touches the ground. He must also maintain control of the ball all the way to the ground. If on the other hand, he comes to the ground with both feet, he must not only maintain control of the ball throughout the play but must also be able to perform an "act normal to the game of football" (i.e., he must be able to demonstrate that he could run with the ball even though in the end zone that will not be necessary.)      

It my understanding in football when the ball carriers knee touches the ground the ball is spotted where the knee contacts the ground. If that is correct then why is it a touch down when the ball carriers knee touches the ground before the goal line but the player stretches out his arms to put the ball over the goal line. – Dennis N.

The ball is to be placed at its forward point of progress at the time that anything other than the ball carrier's hand or foot touches the ground. So it is not the location of the knee that is important but the location of the ball when the knee touches the ground. In the instance to which you refer, the ball must break the plane of the goal line before the knee (or any other part of the players body other than the hand or foot) touched the ground for it to be a touchdown.

I need a clarification on a rule. My friend said that the TV commentators claimed there was no such thing as 'being blocked into the kicker' be it on punts. field goals. or PAT. If a defensive player is blocked by an offensive player causing him to run into or knock down the kicker is the defensive player penalized? – Chuck M.

NFL Rule 12-2-6 states that "no defensive player may run into or rough a kicker ... unless such contact: f) is caused because a defender is [legally] blocked into the kicker." As a result, if the block is legal (i.e., from in front and above the waist), there will not be a penalty on the defensive team. On the other hand, if the defensive player is illegally blocked (i.e., pushed from behind or clipped) and he contacts the kicker, you could have a penalty on the offensive team. The responsibility for avoiding the kicker rests with the defensive players and any contact while the kicker is in a kicking motion should be a penalty on the defense unless he was blocked into the kicker. 

By the way, the rules are different in college and high school regarding this same situation.

As a side note, please do not accept anything that any of the announcers, with very few exceptions, notably Aikman, Simms and one or two others, have to say about the rules. Most of them do not have a clue and take no time to study and/or understand the rule book.    

If a players body crosses the goalline but the ball doesn't-it isn't considered a touchdown.  If a player catches a pass on the endzone sideline with the ball passed the sideline and the players body still inside the endzone why is this a touchdown since the ball never crossed the plane.  Does the plane extend past the sideline? – Jim J.

On any pass from the field of play into the end zone, it is virtually impossible for the ball to reach the end zone without physically crossing the goal line plane between the pylons. However, for this purpose, assume that the goal line plane extends outside of the sideline. The sideline (and the back line for that matter) is treated as a "line" where the goal line is actually a "plane." The manner in which the rules treat these "lines" is very different. For it to be a touchdown, the receiver must get two feet (or some other part of his body) down in the end zone and the ball must pass through the goal line plane. Where he possesses the ball in his hands (inside or outside the sideline or end line) is of no consequence.    

As a follow-up to the excellent Browns/Ravens FG explanation you already gave ... the announcers said the play was "unreviewable" (I assume that came from the officials in the booth feeding them that fact) -- nevertheless, the referee went under the hood on national TV. I presume he saw what happened. I agree the correct call was made, but I must believe he saw the replay and did not truly rely solely on the conference of officials to make the decision. Further, he must have been aware of this fact, since he said "after further DISCUSSION, the ruling is ..." Clearly, he knew he could not say 'REVIEW'. How should an official treat/use video knowledge when it is not allowed? – Greg W.

I am told that when Morelli went "under the hood" he was not shown a replay of the play but was advised by the booth that the play could not be visually reviewed and that he should talk to the other officials. (It should be noted that the viewable screen is not on full time but must be started from either the booth or the field. That is when the "review clock" starts) As a result, he did not see any pictures of what had occurred.) He then spoke to the two guys under the bar and the Back Judge told him that he felt he had a good view of the play and described what happened. Morelli then had to choose between the call that had originally been made by the Field Judge and the opinion of the Back Judge and he chose the latter. Although the two of them should have talked before any signal was given, the important thing was that they got it right. And Morelli's description that it was after "further discussion" was accurate.   

What is it call when the kicker drops the ball while attempting to punt?– Dawn R.

I am assuming that you mean he drops the ball while attempting to kick it and misses it entirely. In that case it is a fumble and it is treated the same as all fumbles. If the kicker hits the ball with any part of his foot or leg, it is considered a kick and treated accordingly. Old time Giants fans will remember punter Sean Landeta missing a punt in Chicago on a very windy day back in the late 80's or early 90's.

November 25, 2007
Usually when a team kicks off from left to right on the opening kickoff, and in the second half kickoff they will usually kick off from right to left, but i have seen times when a team will kick off or receive from left to right on the opening kickoff and then kickoff or receive from left to right again in the second half kickoff. Why is that ?  Also , when a team wins the coin toss at the beginning of the game and elects to kick off , is it automatic that they will receive the second half kickoff or can it be the other way around ? And why. – Walter J. 

In the NFL, the team winning the coin toss has the choice of receiving, kicking off or defending a specific goal. In the second half, the team that lost the toss before the game has the same choices. As a result, you may have situations where a team goes left to right in the first quarter and then goes left to right again in the third quarter depending on the choices that are made by the respective teams. Also, if a team chooses to kick-off to start the game, there are no guarantees that it will receive the kick-off to start the second half. In fact, the opposite is usually true. As the other team will have the choice at the start of the second half, they will usually choose to receive. As a result, the same team will end up receiving the kick-off to start both halves. Unless the weather situation is really terrible, I have always felt that the choices made to start the game are of little consequence. In the NFL, the team winning the coin toss to start the game chooses to receive the kick about 99.9 percent of the time. (3 out of 256 last year)  

 It should be noted that the rule in college and high school is different and the team winning the toss can defer their choice until the second half. Many teams would rather receive in the second half than in the first.     

With 5:30 left in the 4th quarter in the Giants/Vikings game, Tavaris Jackson slid down to avoid a tackle but then popped back up and tried to continue to run when the officials blew the whistle.  Shouldn't his attempt to run have been considered delay of game?  It makes me think of the Connecticut/South Florida game this year where the return man called for a fair catch but then tried to run it out (and again, there was no delay of game call, when there should have been). – Rita T.

At that point in a 41-10 game, the officials are going to be very reluctant to call anything, let alone a delay of Game call. If it is not a safety related foul at that point, it is not going to be called. (And the NCAA rules are a bit different. In the NFL, you have to be touched down. In college, once you are down the play is over.)  

November 23, 2007
Browns/Ravens Field Goal discussion. . . There seems to be a lot of disagreement over the Pete Morelli crew and the end of the Browns/Ravens game, even though everybody agrees the right call was made.  Obviously, the teams, fans, and many others assumed that the "no good" call was made and the game was over - and then later reversed after discussion.  I thought the call wasn't made officially because of the disagreement, thus not ending the game.

There are a lot of officiating mechanics questions that arose for me out of this particular game and would love to hear your take on the field goal discussion.  (what/who signals 'end of game'?  does the ref signal good/no good for FG tries after input from the other officials? etc.)

I know that's a long question, but I feel like the situation was a new and unique one.  Thanks. – Coyle F.

Excellent question. Let's start with two basic concepts.

First of all, in the NFL the stadium game clock is the official clock although the Line Judge is responsible for game timing and can notify the Referee of a need to correct the clock if such a need should arise.

Secondly, the Referee "is to have general oversight and control of the game. He is the final authority for the score ...." Now the first question that I have is why the covering official did not realize that the ball had gone over the bar and hit the support before bouncing back. As the ball passed over the cross bar, he should have circled out and verified where it hit. Part of the problem may have been that each official under the goal is responsible for his half of the goal posts and as this one went right down the middle, there may have been a bit of a mix-up. Also, the cross bar itself may have blocked his vision of where the ball hit exactly. Both downfield officials on Morelli's crew are experienced officials but it is likely that they had never seen this situation occur before.

Now for the rules about a FG: "The entire ball must pass through the goal. In case wind or other forces cause it to return through the goal, it must have struck the ground or some object or person before returning." (Rule 11-5-1 (c)). And the "goal" is defined as the vertical plane extending indefinitely above the cross bar and the lines indicated by the outer edges of the goal posts.

When the ball passes over the cross bar and stays there or hits something and comes back, the covering officials will signal that the FG is good. However, the score will not count nor will the play stand until the Referee assesses all other actions and signals that the play stands (i.e., just think about the situation in which the FG is signaled as good but there was a penalty on the kicking team. In that instance, even though the downfield officials have made their signal, the score does not count because the referee has not echoed their signal.)

In Sunday's situation, something caused Pete Morelli to question exactly where the ball hit. It may have been the other official under the bar but I do not know for sure. In that instance, the best thing to do is get the crew together and try to determine what every one saw. Whether the fans, players or TV announcers think the game is over is a no-never mind. It is up to the referee to declare it over.

As far as I could tell, Morelli got his crew together, talked it out and made the right call. The fact that the teams had run into the locker room was unfortunate but of no consequence. The fact that Morelli could not use replay to view what happened was also unfortunate and look for a change to replay rules next year.

I have no idea why the no good signal was given by the officials under the cross bar. However, after that, Morelli did everything by the book and came up with the right result. There are times that the Referee is the last one to know what happened downfield and he has to piece together the story as best he can.

Sometimes the Referee has to look an official in the eye to get a feel for how certain he is regarding the call that he made. In this case, when all was said and done, it turned out correctly.         

November 20, 2007
I know the offensive holding penalty is not going to change in nature, but do you think the consequence may ever change?  I think this may have been part of what John F. was asking about...

For instance, if it is deemed to be "inadvertent", it could be a 5 yard penalty.  If it is judged to be "intentional" then it could be a 10 yard or even 15 yard infraction.

A 10 yard loss can completely change the momentum of a drive over something that may in fact be inadvertent and non relevant to the outcome of the play.  This seems to be addressed in other areas of the rules, like pass interference/defensive holding, so why not here? – Anthony H. 

I have absolutely no insight into what the rule makers may be thinking but I do not think that we are going to see such a change as you suggest. Remember, defensive holding is 5 yards and an automatic first down while offensive holding is 10 yards (recently changed from 15 about 5-7 years ago) and it is felt that the two penalties balance each other pretty well. Once you open Pandora's box regarding varying levels on one foul, I question how you would treat others. like a block in the back above the waist, illegal motion, roughing the QB, etc.

You don't want to introduce too many decision points for the officials as that will just cause more complaining. It is bad enough now when we discuss whether a hold was legitimate all week long and to introduce whether it should have been a 5 or a 10 or a 15 yarder would just complicate matters. In addition, such a judgment would require the officials to postulate what might have happened if the penalty did not occur. I had a college game a few weeks ago where we had a hold (a take down) on the LB by the TE about 5 yards downfield, the runner turned the corner and had an open field in front of him only to slip and fall down for about a 7 yard gain.

In that case, should we have assessed the penalty on what might have occurred or what did occur, and if the latter, should we have picked up the flag because he didn't gain any additional yardage? You can see, I hope, that this will add all sorts of additional complications. I suspect that the rule will stay pretty much the way that it is. Sometimes the Giants, like all teams, will benefit from the rule and other times they may pay the price.    

You said in your first of two November 14th responses that "an official is trained to react by thinking ... did it [holding] impact the play?"  In your other response the same day, you said that "a hold is a hold" no matter what happens on the play.  How do you reconcile your two statements? – Jeff L.

I think that the two responses are consistent. If the Right Tackle holds and the run goes to the left side, you will probably not see a flag unless the hold is really blatant. And, if the run goes to the left and the WR holds 10 yards downfield and the runner is tackled in the backfield, you will typically not see a flag. In both of those instances, the official asks himself, did the hold effect the play and he typically will respond negatively.

However, if the Guard leading the sweep grabs the defensive player and the runner is close behind, it should not make a difference whether he grabs the shirt, the waist or pulls him down. In this case, "a hold is a hold is a hold." I almost hate to be casual about the matter but it like the famous statement about pornography, you'll know it when you see it. The rule book takes three pages to describe all of the aspects of holding.

Typically, the Supervisors will add all sorts of other caveats (like if the score is 43-0, don't call it). The official tries to work within all of these frameworks. But the point that I was trying to make is that it is all part of a fairly well ingrained thought process and not just a random act when the infraction is seen. I hope that this has helped.

November 19, 2007
I think I may have answered my own question, but is the reason a play is not blown dead on a holding call to give the defense the right to decline it? Otherwise it seems not make sense and to put the players in harms way unnecessarily. – John F.

Once the ball is snapped, there is no live action foul in Pro football that causes the play to be stopped (other than a foul resulting from an intentional attempt to conserve time, which is extremely rare). The basis for that is that there are so many things that can occur in the remainder of the play including a foul by the other team that would offset the holding foul, interceptions, fumbles, etc. In addition, the hold could occur at a point where the offensive team might have a first down in any event (i.e., well beyond the LOS) and you would be penalizing the defensive team by taking away the opportunity to cause a fumble or have the runner go backwards or make some other mistake.  There would also be a question of when did you restart the clock and did this cause an advantage to one team or another in that it would allow time to run off the clock with no extended risk to the team. The concept of stopping a game because of a foul is just foreign to the entire concept of football.  

Is there a recent rule change that allows a team that attempted and missed a field goal on third down, to retry the field goal on forth down? – Jerry A.

I am not sure which level you are wondering about, NFL college or high school, but there is no such rule, new or old, on any level. The only time that situation could occur is if the initial attempt is made on 3rd down and the kick is blocked, never goes beyond the line of scrimmage, and is recovered by the kicking team. Then they will get the opportunity to run another play. But that is an old rule, not something new. If you have any specifics about the play in question, please send them and I will be glad to address the situation.    

I need a clarification on a rule. My friend said that the TV commenetators claimed there was no such thing as 'being blocked into the kicker' be it on punts. field goals. or PAT. If a defensive player is blocked by an offensive player causing him to run into or knock down the kicker is the defensive player penalized? – Chuck M.

NFL Rule 12-2-6 states that "no defensive player may run into or rough a kicker ... unless such contact: f) is caused because a defender is [legally] blocked into the kicker." As a result, if the block is legal (i.e., from in front and above the waist), there will not be a penalty on the defensive team. On the other hand, if the defensive player is illegally blocked (i.e., pushed from behind or clipped) and he contacts the kicker, you could have a penalty on the offensive team. The responsibility for avoiding the kicker rests with the defensive players and any contact while the kicker is in a kicking motion should be a penalty on the defense unless he was blocked into the kicker. 

By the way, the rules are different in college and high school regarding this same situation.

As a side note, please do not accept anything that any of the announcers, with very few exceptions, notably Aikman, Simms and one or two others, have to say about the rules. Most of them do not have a clue and take no time to study and/or understand the rule book.   

November 15, 2007
Thanks for the response on the holding call. i definitely see your point. perhaps a way to get around it, is to call it something else. to wit, the way they call a hold vs. a pass interference if the ball is uncatchable or not thrown to that person. – John F.

I am glad that you see the difficulty in making a distinction. Even in the situation that you cite (i.e., pass interference versus holding on a pass play) the deciding factor is not what the player/runner/receiver might do but whether the ball is catchable. So the officials do not have to assume that something will happen when making their call.

The one thing that I can tell you is that the NFL Rules Committee (or the NCAA Rules Committee as well) does not take any changes lightly and they do an awful lot of research before they make a change. Right now, this situation does not appear to be considered a problem (i.e., the Cowboys are thrilled that the rule is the way that it is) and I do not see any ground swell of enthusiasm around the league for a change.

For a number of years, they have looked into changing Pass Interference from a spot foul to a 15 yard plus a first down foul but have decided to leave things the way that they are out of concern that the DBs will just grab the receiver on every long pass when they are beaten. Like everything else, there are always (at least) two sides to the discussion.         

Here is a quick question I need help clarifying.   According to the National High School Football Association, can an interior lineman (i.e. A guard or a center) ever wear a back number?  An example of this would be, can a second string Center have an 80 number?  Next, can tackles wear a back number? – Lee D.

According to the National Federation Rule book, (Rule 7-2-2) there must be five players on the LOS at the snap with numbers between 50-79 unless it is a punt formation in which case there can be any number of players on the line with any number. However, to be eligible to go out for and/or catch a legal forward pass, the player must:

 

    a) be on the end of the line (or in the backfield) at the snap and

    b) have a number that is not between 50-79.

 

So you could have a Center wearing number 80 or a tackle wearing a back's number. However, there would have to be adjustments to the numbering of other linemen (i.e., if the Center wears 80, then the TE would have to wear 50-79) for the formation to be legal as you still need five players between 50-79). Neither the Center nor the Tackle would be eligible to go out for or catch a pass unless they were on the end of the scrimmage line.

 

In the scrimmage kick formation, again only the players on the end of the line can go out for a pass and only if they are wearing a number other than 50-79.

November 14, 2007
Holding calls seem to be like speeding tickets: there's a lot you can get away with without being penalized. How do the officials really decide when to throw the flag? – Matt R.

Every holding call is subjective as you could really call holding on every play in the NFL.

The things that get looked at are: a) was it at or near the point of attack; b) were the hands in or outside the frame of the body; c) if outside, did the blocker immediately try to get his hands inside the frame of the body; d) when did the blocker let go/how long did he maintain contact; e) was there a takedown or did the blocked player stay on his feet; f) where did the action occur (i.e., in close line play or outside); g) did the defending player attempt to get away; h) was it a single or two man block; and a number of other factors.

The guidelines for "Illegal Use of Hands" go for almost 3 pages in the Rule Book. The ones that tripped up the Giants this week were: 1. Rule 10-4-3 (c) - "An offensive blocker cannot use his hands to materially restrict an opponent or alter the defender's path or angle of pursuit. Material restrictions include but are not limited to: (iii) pulling him to the ground." This is what got Boss in trouble, especially as it was out in the open and right in front of the official (the Umpire) coming down the field; and 2. Rule 10-3 - "If a blocker's arms or hands are outside an opponent's frame, it is a foul if the blocker materially restricts him. The blocker immediately must work to bring his hands inside the opponents frame." It is also stated that the blocker can not contact the defensive player "on the neck, face or head." This is what got Snee in trouble in that he had his arm outside the frame of the body and around the Dallas safety and near the neck and didn't get his hands off or down until Jacobs was past.This call was also made by the Umpire from behind and it may have looked worse from that angle than it did from the front (and on TV).

I will not say that it was the best holding call that I have ever seen but I can see how it could be justified. I get especially upset when I hear or see people (who have never officiated or attempted to officiate) complain that it was a "ticky-tack" (or some other phrase) foul. I will repeat what I have said before in that these decisions must be made virtually instantaneously and often from angles that are different than the high angle view provided by the TV camera. In football, an official is trained to react by thinking in steps: a) "Was that a foul?" b) "That looked like a foul"; c) "Did it impact the play?" (i.e., Had Jacobs slipped and fallen in the backfield, in all probability no call would have been made); d) "That was a foul";  e) "Damn it, THAT was a foul." It is only after this process, which may take less than a second or two, that the flag comes out. The official also has to get the flag out of his pants and wait until he sees a clear path to throw his flag. That is why you see the "late" flags that the announcers (most of whom don't have a clue) and some fans always complain about. The flags are not "late." They are just the last step in a thought and physical process that requires some time to unfold.

The "Judgement" penalties on Sunday did not cost the Giants the game although they did have a significant impact on it. Across a season, things like this all sort of even out. (The Umpire also called the Unsportsmanlike Conduct penalty on Dallas for taunting early in the game so things weren't one-sided). This is not Fantasy Football. It is all part of the human aspect of the game.                    

It looked like the holding call in Kevin Boss during the run back really did not impact the play. Has there ever been consideration of having variations on the penalty for these calls - like for face masking? – John F.

Not to the best of my knowledge. This is not a subject that has come up at recent Rules Committee meetings on any level, NFL, NCAA or high school. There are only two penalties where there are "variations" on the level of assessment, face masking and running into/roughing the kicker. Both of those penalties involve a level of severity that is relatively easy to judge. That is not the case with holding (or a push in the back or all sorts of other calls). As officials often say, "A hold is a hold is a hold is a ..."

The one hypothetical question that I would like to pose is as follows: As I understand it, the Dallas player that was pulled to the ground by Boss, which he admits by the way, was the best special teams player on the Cowboys. At the time that the hold was made, Bradshaw was at full speed coming up the field. Say he had taken two steps to the right instead of one to the left and then going straight ahead. Could you really expect the officials to anticipate what might have happened if he had made a slight cut in a different direction and then assess the penalty accordingly? Whatever the officials would rule in that case, there would be more people screaming on Monday morning.

If you look at the rules of football, there is no rule that is dependent upon an assessment of what might happen. The key thing here is that we will never know the actual impact on the play of Boss' hold or any other penalty for that matter. Someone once raised the question as to how a hold against Lawrence Taylor could be called on the left side of the field when the run went to the right. The answer that was given by then NFL Supervisor of Officials Art McNally was that a hold that occurred against LT anywhere on the field may have taken him out of the play and we all know that he could make plays all over the field. So if you see a hold, call it.     

November 13, 2007
This is not a question, just a comment.  I'm glad that a player could be pulled down by his hair without a foul.  I think they ALL should get haircuts. – Jim V.

Thanks for the comment. To the best of my knowledge, it has only happened once or twice in the NFL. But it is a question that has been asked repeatedly.  

November 12, 2007
In regards to the horse collar tackles during the cowboys game.  You say that the reason they were not called is because Jacobs did not immediately go down.  First off I believe to be in error.  There was at least one example plainly in front of Triplett where the defender had his hand inside Jacobs's shoulder pads and was brought down.  Also you use the stipulation that many times Jacobs “immediately to the ground,” as if to mean that so long as he does not go straight down the horse collar can continue.  But isn't the stipulation there so that a player can remove their hands before bringing the player down.  In many of the cases during the cowboys game the Dallas player never removed their hand regardless of how quickly the Giants player went down. – Myk Z.

I am not sure where you gained the notion that there is a stipulation allowing the tackler to remove his hand from a runners shirt or shoulder pads but no such stipulation exists.

Rule 12-2-1 (d) states that: "All players are prohibited from grabbing the inside collar of the back of the shoulder pads or jersey, or the inside collar of the side of the shoulder pads or jersey, and immediately pulling down the runner. This does not apply to a runner who is in the tackle box or to a quarterback who is in the pocket." That is all that the rule says. There is nothing about removing their hands or keeping them in place.

As for the situations related to Jacobs, there was at least one time and possibly two that he was still in the tackle box (which extends from the outside shoulder of one tackle to the outside shoulder of the other tackle and 3 yards on either side of the LOS, roughly a 5 yard by 6 yard area) when he was initially contacted. In the others, he is so strong that he continues onward even when grabbed by the collar. Thus, he was not immediately pulled down to the ground and no penalty is called. The way that the rule has been interpreted, the runner must go immediately to the ground when grabbed for it to be a foul. Remember that this is a judgment call and there are a number of factors involved. But after reviewing the tape of the game, I had no problem with any of the "no calls" by Tripplette or Umpire Jim Quick involving the horse collar rule.

By the way, no such rule exists in college or high school but expect to see one soon. Another interesting sidelight is that if someone grabs the long flowing hair of a runner that sticks out from the helmet and brings him to the ground, it is not a foul.    

November 8, 2007
I have a hypothetical question. A defender makes an interception at his team's own 2 yard-line. While attempting to advance the interception, he runs into his own end zone and is tackled. Is that a safety just as if an offensive player is tackled in his own endzone? Under the scenario above, if the defender instead fumbles the interception and it rolls out of the end zone, what is the result? – Joe K.

The key in the two plays that you pose is which team was responsible for causing the ball to be in the end zone. In the first situation, if the momentum of the defensive back caused him to go into the end zone (and if the interception occurred between the goal line and the 5 yard line), the ball will be placed at the spot where the interception occurred. This is called the "momentum exception."

If, on the other hand, the interceptor clearly gained possession in the field of play and in the course of running around he ran backwards and went into the end zone on his own, the result will be a safety. As for the fumble, if he clearly gained possession in the field of play and then fumbles the ball backwards into the end zone and it goes out of the end zone, it will be a safety because the interceptor caused the ball to be in the end zone.

In the same situation, if a member of the original offensive team were to fall on the ball while it was still in the end zone, it would be a TD for the offense. In all of these situations, remember to ask yourself "Which team caused the ball to be in the end zone?" If it is the offense, it is a TD. It it was the defense, it will be a safety.   

November 7, 2007
Team attempts a field goal on 4th down. Attempt is blocked by the defensive team. Ball goes beyond the line of scrimmage and is recovered by the kicking team. Which team is awarded possession of the ball. Can the kicking team advance the blocked kick? — Chuck M.

If the block occurs in or behind the neutral zone, the touching of the ball by the defense is ignored and the ball can not be recovered by the kicking team beyond the LOS. The only way that the ball can belong to the kicking team is if it is touched beyond the neutral zone by the defense or recovered by the kicking team behind the LOS. In the event that it goes beyond the line, if it is "muffed" by a defensive player (i.e., touched but no possession) it can not be advanced by the recovering team but it will belong to the kicking team at the spot of recovery. If it is possessed by the defense and then fumbled, it can be advanced by the kicking team. This is the reason why you see the defense stay away from almost every missed FG kick even if it lands in the field of play, which in the NFL does not happen very frequently.

November 4, 2007
If you are running the ball in for a score do you have to maintain control of the ball after crossing the goaline as you fall? Also when you win a challenge do you lose that challenge if you win the ruling, but if you challenge again and win you have the right to a third challenge? — David P.

To score a touchdown on a running play, you must be in possession of the ball when it breaks the plane of the goal line. Once you have done that, the TD is scored and play is dead and whatever happens afterwards is of no interest. (Remember, it is different on a passing play.) As for the number of challenges that a coach gets, every challenge counts. If you win the first two, you get a third. If you lose either of the first two, that is all that you get. Remember, once the game is in the last two minutes, the Coaches may not challenge any play. All challenges/replay requests will come from the Replay Official in the booth. In the NFL, all final decisions will be made by the Referee. The rules on challenges are very different in college.   

NOVEMBER 1, 2007
I just saw the Rams/Browns game over the weekend where this happened. I would like your interpretation of the ruling. There was a forward pass completion which resulted in a first down. The receiver (after the play was over) took off his helmet taunting the defense. This, of course was a 15 yard penalty. It happened at the end of the quarter. When the officials started play again for the next quarter, they marked the down as 1st and 10. Since The offense happened after the play was over (therefore already 1st and 10), after the penalty was marked off, should it not have been 1st and 25? My thinking is that it was a dead-ball foul so the yard markers should not have moved. – Tony R.

This is a situation that the rules makers specifically attempted to address a few years ago when they changed the rules to avoid, to the extent possible, a 1st and 25 situation. Rule 14-8-4 now states that after a distance penalty for a foul by the offensive team (live ball or dead ball) during (or just after) a play from scrimmage that results in the ball being in advance of the line to gain (i.e., a first down), it is 1st and 10 for the offensive team. So even though the penalty occurred after the play was over, it will still be 1st and 10. The only way that you could have 1st and 25 would be if the penalty occurred after the ready signal (with the chains already set) for the next play or on the next play (as long as the penalty is not a loss of down as well). This is the reason why you see very few "1st and 25's" these days.     

Wondering if a player catches a ball in end zone, feet clearly in end zone...but ball never crosses the goal line, is it Touchdown? Feet are and possession, no ball over imaginary line. – Steve C.

Rule 11-2-1 (a) states that: "it is a touchdown if the ball is on, above, or behind the plane of the opponents goal line and is possession of a [player] that has advanced from the field of play." So it is not the location of the player but of the ball that is the deciding factor. If the receivers feet are in the end zone but the ball has not broken the plane of the goal line, it is not a touchdown and the ball should be placed at its forward most point in the field of play.

INSIDE FOOTBALL is neither sponsored by, nor affiliated with the New York Giants or the National Football League. All material © 2007, Inside Football Publications. Site-related questions? Contact the web master. | Privacy Policy