I have heard several different answers to this question and am still not clear as to the correct answer.

 

In the Russell Mercer game. Mercer had the ball on the Russell one foot line, it was forth down, and Mercer attempted a QB keeper up the middle. Russell clearly stopped the Mercer QB. If you watch the Officials they do not signal TD. The ball comes loose in the field of play and is recovered by another Mercer player in the end zone at the bottom of the pile. Russell at no time had the ball.

 

It was ruled a TD by the ref. Was that the correct call?

 

If it was the rule needs to be changed and this is my rational. If it were the last play of the game or even the first half and I were a coach I would tell my QB if he sees that he cannot get into the end zone fumble the ball into the end zone and hope for the best.

 

I'm not whining over the call. I just want to know what the real deal is.

Sure, any fumble recovered by an offensive player in the end zone is a TD.

 

How should it be ruled?

^ Actually in the pros and college, only the "fumbler" can recover the ball, if it is fourth down. That was the case in this game. If it were college, it would've been a touchback.

Sure, any fumble recovered by an offensive player in the end zone is a TD.

 

How should it be ruled?

 

 

In college and the pros the same player that fumbled must recover his own fumble. Anyone else who recovers to that it is a touch back. Why is high school different? It needs to be changed

^ Actually in the pros and college, only the "fumbler" can recover the ball, if it is fourth down. That was the case in this game. If it were college, it would've been a touchback.

 

Exactly. But I have heard two rulings on this play and both are different. I don't have a KHSAA rule book or I would look it up myself. Watusi says it is A TD and I can go with that. The rule does although need to be changed for the reasons I indicated before.

Exactly. But I have heard two rulings on this play and both are different. I don't have a KHSAA rule book or I would look it up myself. Watusi says it is A TD and I can go with that. The rule does although need to be changed for the reasons I indicated before.

I am not a ref but I would say that the T.D. stands. There (to my knowledge) is not a "fumble foward" rule in h.s. football. I had a former coach at the h.s. level tell me when discussing this very play that kids (some teams anyway) are taught and told in this very situation (goal line-4th down) if they know they are stopped short to fumble the ball in the endzone. Should their team recover it is a T.D., worse that could happen is that the opposing team reovers and then it is a touchback and their ball on the 20. Without a "fumble" rule in that situation imo it was a pretty smart play on the Mercer runners part.

I am not a ref but I would say that the T.D. stands. There (to my knowledge) is not a "fumble foward" rule in h.s. football. I had a former coach at the h.s. level tell me when discussing this very play that kids (some teams anyway) are taught and told in this very situation (goal line-4th down) if they know they are stopped short to fumble the ball in the endzone. Should their team recover it is a T.D., worse that could happen is that the opposing team reovers and then it is a touchback and their ball on the 20. Without a "fumble" rule in that situation imo it was a pretty smart play on the Mercer runners part.

 

I would agree it was very smart if he indeed had time to think about it. I think I saw somewhere that Clark actually stripped the ball. I myself think the rule should be changed. There must be good reason why you can't fumble into the end zone at the college and pro level.

 

Think about this. Would an intentional fumble by the QB be an incomplete pass?? Or maybe an illegal forward pass if he crosses the line of scrimmage. In my mind it would only if he intentionally losses the ball. If it is in anyway knocked out of his hand I would agree with the fumble.

There must be good reason why you can't fumble into the end zone at the college and pro level.

 

Think about this. Would an intentional fumble by the QB be an incomplete pass??

1. Imo there is a good reason for the rule in college and pro - imo it is to prevent this kind of thing and I also think that the rule should be changed in h.s. to this.

 

2. Imo it couldn't be ruled an incomplete pass unless he was in the throwing motion with his arm moving foward.

I have heard several different answers to this question and am still not clear as to the correct answer.

 

In the Russell Mercer game. Mercer had the ball on the Russell one foot line, it was forth down, and Mercer attempted a QB keeper up the middle. Russell clearly stopped the Mercer QB. If you watch the Officials they do not signal TD. The ball comes loose in the field of play and is recovered by another Mercer player in the end zone at the bottom of the pile. Russell at no time had the ball.

 

It was ruled a TD by the ref. Was that the correct call?

 

If it was the rule needs to be changed and this is my rational. If it were the last play of the game or even the first half and I were a coach I would tell my QB if he sees that he cannot get into the end zone fumble the ball into the end zone and hope for the best.

 

I'm not whining over the call. I just want to know what the real deal is.

 

 

The 2006 NFHS Rulebook (Rule 4.2.2)

 

The ball becomes dead and the down is ended :

 

a. When a runner goes out of bounds, is held so his forward progress is stopped or allows any part of his person other than his hand or foot to touch the ground.

 

I had a perfect view of the play and while there is no rule yet in HS concerning who may recover a fumble the play should have been blown dead after his forward progress was stopped. I've since seen the game film and the WSAZ film which was taped from the goalline and it's obvious he was stopped. Immediately after the snap the center is pushed back and the QB was behind him, after seeing the QB was not going to get in the FB comes up and tries to push him into the endzone. That did not work either. Almost 8seconds after his forward progress was stopped the ball comes loose and somehow ends up in the hands of a Mercer player lying in the endzone at the bottom of the pile. The whole time that this play is going on is there is not 1 whistle blown the whole time, not 1. Because the officials did not blow the whistle to stop play, the Mercer players did exactly what they were suppossed to do and not give up on the play. It looks as though the Mercer QB either just lets go or drops to the ball on purpose after realizing he wasn't going anywhere even with his FB's help and it was a very smart play by the QB, it worked. It was a very heads-up play on his part. I don't know why the officials never blew the whistle, maybe the line officials could not see the ball, I don't know, but the referee could. He had a perfect view of it and while I'm sure he couldn't tell where the QB was, he could see that his forward progress was stopped. In a situation like that you have to rely on your fellow crew members to make the correct call. Communication on plays like that are crucial. I completely understand missed calls but I feel like if they would have just gotten together and communicated that the outcome would have been different.

Sure, any fumble recovered by an offensive player in the end zone is a TD.

 

How should it be ruled?

 

 

Depends on force.

Exactly. But I have heard two rulings on this play and both are different. I don't have a KHSAA rule book or I would look it up myself. Watusi says it is A TD and I can go with that. The rule does although need to be changed for the reasons I indicated before.

 

If your referring to the fumble, if the fumble was purposely pushed or tossed forward it would be an incomplete pass or could even be intentional grounding if no eligible receivers are near. It could also be ruled an illegal forward pass, (Rule 7.5.2d) Art 2..... An illegal forward pass is a foul. The illegal forward passes are:

 

c. A pass intentionally thrown to an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver

d. A pass intentionally thrown incomplete to save loss of yardage or to conserve time.

 

It the Mercer QB did intentionally fumble the ball forward in was to save loss of yardage and could have been rules an illegal pass, although it's a very unlikely call.

The 2006 NFHS Rulebook (Rule 4.2.2)

 

The ball becomes dead and the down is ended :

 

is held so his forward progress is stopped

 

I singled this one out. This says all you need to know on this particular play, the replay/film I saw from WSAZ t.v. was directly looking down the goal line from the side - perfect angle. There was NO DOUBT that the foward progress was stopped. UKcatsfan you said the you were at the same angle on the field and backed up what the film from WSAZ showed. Imo if the referee blows this play dead when he should have there is no further discussion on this play. Foward progressed stopped - was 4th down - Russell takes over the football on downs on about the 1/2 yd. line. They swallowed their whistle - end of story.

Quarterback realizes he's not going to make it.

 

He reaches out with the ball to try and stick it over the goal line.

 

Russell players swats ball out of QBs hand.

 

Ref sees that ball is loose, no longer cares about QBs progress.

 

They wait to see who recovers the fumble.

 

Award Mercer a TD when they see who recovered and where it was recovered.

 

No intentional grounding, no illeagal forward pass. It was a smart play by the QB to try and stick it across the goal line, and it was a smart play by the Russell defender to swat the ball. Mercer was fortunate enough to fall on it.

Several have correctly pointed out that the high school rule is different than the other levels of football.

 

Personally I like the rule the way it is for high school. As long as it isn't determined that it was a intentional forward fumble (illegal pass), then I see no reason why the team advancing the ball shouldn't be able to recover their own fumble, even if it is 4th down.

 

On the play in question, I was shocked that the runner wasn't blown down based on the stopping of his forward progress. His progress was completely stopped behind the goal line for a good several seconds and then the fumble and recovery. I haven't seen the replay, but in person, it certainly looked like his progress was stopped but in fairness I didn't see the ball pop out and it could have happened sooner than I thought.

 

On the play in question, I was shocked that the runner wasn't blown down based on the stopping of his forward progress. His progress was completely stopped behind the goal line for a good several seconds and then the fumble and recovery. I haven't seen the replay, but in person, it certainly looked like his progress was stopped but in fairness I didn't see the ball pop out and it could have happened sooner than I thought.

:thumb: :thumb: This was my feelings on it, imo the ref "fumbled" the call he should had made.