Expert: Vic Winnek - 9/13/2006

Question
Thanks so much for answering all of my questions!  

This is my last question. I have a fellow worker who says that college football rule ARTICLE 1. a. A player is out of bounds when any part of his person touches anything, other than another player or game official, on or outside a boundary line (Rule 4-2-1-I and II) applies more to this Wisconsin fumble recovery rule than rule 4-2-3 (a).  He thinks Wisconsin's fumble recovery in that Bowling Green should have been allowed. What do you think?  
-------------------------

Followup To

Question -
Hoped you Saturday game went well. Thanks again for your complete reply followup to this very interesting play the first week of the season.  I was just trying to get an explanation on why the call was reversed for my education.

Several times I have watched the Sept 2 replay of the controversal fumble by the Bowling Green quarterback after a 19 yard gain on first down on the first play of the 4th quarter.  The Wisconsin defender Stellmaker came from behind to knock the ball out of the quarterback's arm.  Both players scrambled forward to get the bouncing ball.  The Wisconsin defender did trip over a Bowling Green lineman's legs while scrambling forward, while the Bowling Green lineman's head was out-of-bounds.  When the Wisconsin defender scooped the football with his arm, his arm did touch the Bowling Green quarterback's helmet while the quarterback's legs were out-of-bounds. The Wisconsin defender was in bounce for the entire play.  

The out-of-bound plane theory was offered by the television announcer Wayne Larrivee (the radio voice of the Packers).  I have never had heard of the out-of-bounds being a plane, but college football continues to change some long standing basic rules like starting the clock after change of possession.

My Followup Questions:

1) So according to your email rule 4-2-3 (a) applies to the above situation that the inbounds Wisconsin player recovers a fumble was considered out-of-bounds if he touchs another player that is out-of-bounds?  

2) if the Bowling Green player had recovered the fumble, could he still recover a fumble after coming back from being out-of-bounds (unlike making a pass reception catch after coming out-of-bounds)?  

No Madison newspaper writer talked about this play the entire week. I did email a sportswriter at the Madison Capital Times who had this perspective:

"I was cognizant of the plane only applying to the goal line. The plane "theory'' was raised by the television announcers, Wayne Larrivee and
co., not the radio team.

Secondly, I visited with a former Big Ten ref on Saturday. And he actually gave me the wrong interpretation on the penalty -- assuming that somewhere in the rule book it stated that a player who is in contact with another player who is out of bounds is then also deemeded out of bounds. Ten minutes later, the former ref informed us no such ruling exists.

Here's the skinny on what happened in Cleveland.
You had a Big Ten crew on the field and you have one lone MidAmerican Conference official in the replay booth. And the MAC official kicked the call, booted it, whiffed. End of story. lucas "
   
-------------------------

Followup To

Question -
Thank you your response. You did locate the correct play. But the Wisconsin defender that stripped and recovered the fumble was never had any of his body out-of-bounds.  The play was ruled out-of-bounds, because the replay official saw the football bounce above the out-of-bound line (breaking the OB plane) before it was scooped up by the defender.  The ball or defender never touched the white out-of-bounds markings.
-------------------------

Followup To

Question -
I have a out-of-bounds overrule question that occurred in the 4th quarter of last week's 2006 Wisconsin Badger vs. Bowling Green football game. A Wisconsin (UW) cornerback stripped the ball from the Bowling Greeen (BG)quarterback.  The ball bounced up, but did break the out-of-bounds plane before the UW player scooped up the ball in bounds.  The football never touched the ground with the white out-of-bounds marker. The officials awarded the football to Wisconsin, but the replay official overruled the call because the ball broke the out-of-bounds plane.  What is the correct call?   If the replay official is correct, then a receiver catching a pass with his hands over the out-of-bounds line with his feet in bounds would be an incomplete pass, according to the out-of-bounds is a plane rule.

Answer -
Follow-up
John,
I could not locate the game film but I did find a blog that that I believe discusses the play you describe:

BLOG ****************
Fumble!
14:52, 4th Quarter  Wis vs. BG 9/3/06

Freddie Barnes fumbled by the Wisconsin sideline and Joe Stellmacher recovered. Stellmacher forced the fumble, amazingly kept the ball inbounds then recovered the fumble. Bowling Green is challenging the call (that Stellmacher was inbounds I presume).

The call is reversed
14:51, 4th Quarter

The ref said Joe Stellmacher was out of bounds when he recovered the fumble, thus Bowling Green keeps the ball at the UW 42.

On that fumble, Bret Bielema was jumping as high as anyone else on the sideline when Joe Stellmacher came up with the ball. Ah, the exhuberance of youth. Bowling Green will not have any replay challenges for the rest of the game as each team only gets one
************************** END of BLOG

If this is the play you question then my assumption a player was OB when he houched the ball and the ball is considered to be OB since an out of bounds player can not gain position of the ball.  It appears the Big Ten officials were correct with their final ruling.  

I hope this has answered your question.  If you require more information please feel free to follow up.  Also If you would not mind rating this reply I would be greatful.

Thank you,
Vic Winnek  









Thanks for the question.  I am trying to find the game film to see exactly what you are describing.  Based only on your statement: the replay official "overruled the call because the ball broke the out-of-bounds plane" is very strange.

There is no out of bounds plane refered to in the rules. The plane only applies to the goal line.  I suspect the play by play guys gave the explaination.

What was the Down?
Was any play touching the sideline or OB? - I think that might be the case.
Who used the term out of bounds plane?

I will follow up when I get more information.
Thank you,
Victor Winnek
NCAA Football Official

Answer -
Post Follow-up:
John,
This question is stumping me because the terminology you use to describe the play is does not make sense and is not a term used within the football rules or their application. Your original question states:

"The play was ruled out-of-bounds, because the replay official saw the football bounce above the out-of-bound line (breaking the OB plane) before it was scooped up by the defender".

First, I believe what you state is what you heard on the TV or Radio. I don't doubt the statement you make is what you heard.  What was the sourse of this statement?  I assume it was a TV announcer - is that correct?  I suspect the ruling was not articulated well.  The term "plane" is a term of art that is only used when referring to the goal line and not the Side line or out of bounds boundry.  The ball must be declared dead for it to be Out of bounds.

Second, A ball is not out of bounds (OB) until it touches something OB (i.e. the ground, a player, a game official or anything else OB.  The rules that are in question are:

2-25-6 Out of Bounds Spot is the point at which, according to the rule, the ball becomes dead because of going or being declared out of bounds;

4-2-2 (b) A ball in player possesion is OB when either the ball or any part of the runner touches the ground or anything else that is on or outside a boundry line (side line)... (execption); [this rule is most likely not the applicable rule since you describe a loose ball not in player possession.]

4-2-3 (a) BALL OUT of BOUNDS A ball not in player possession, other than a kick that scores a Field Goal [i.e. a fumble], is out of bounds when it touches the ground, a player, an official or anything else out side the boundry line (side line).

4-2-3 (c) If a live ball not in player possession crosses the boundery line is declared dead out of bounds, it is out of bounds at the crossing point.

Now let me break down your original question:
1) "A Wisconsin (UW) cornerback stripped the ball from the Bowling Greeen (BG)quarterback." BOWLING GREEN WAS IN TEAM AND PLAYER POSSESSION BEFORE THE BALL BECAME LOOSE. THEN THE BALL WAS STRIPPED. THIS IS THE FUMBLE AND THE STATUS OF THE BALL IS A LOOSE BALL - NOT IN PLAYER POSSESSION.

2) "The ball bounced up, but did break the out-of-bounds plane before the UW player scooped up the ball in bounds.  The football never touched the ground with the white out-of-bounds marker." THE BOUNCING BALL IS A LIVE LOOSE BALL IN BOUNDS. FORGET THE TERM OUT OF BOUNDS PLANE - THERE IS NO SUCH FOOTBALL TERM AND I THINK THIS IS WHAT CONFUSSES YOU AND MAKES THE QUESTION A "STUMPER".  

THEN A WIS. PLAYER GAINS POSSESSION [I ASSUME] WHEN HE SCOOPS IT UP IN BOUNDS. THEN YOU STATE IN YOUR QUESTION "The officials[on the field] awarded the football to Wisconsin,"  THIS ON ITS FACE IS THE PROPER RULING BECASUE THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN A CHANGE OF POSESSION WHEN THE WIS. PLAYER GETS THE LIVE LOOSE BALL IN BOUNDS.

3) "but the replay official overruled the call because the ball broke the out-of-bounds plane." THE REPLAY OFFICIAL, PERSUANT TO NEW NCAA RULE 12, HAS THE AUTHORITY TO OVERRULE CERTAIN PLAYS WHEN THERE IS INDISPUTABLE EVIDENCE TO DO SO. AGAIN, THE TERM YOU USE "OUT OF BOUNDS PLANE" IS NOT A PROPER TERM. I CAN ONLY ASSUME THE REPLAY OFFICIAL SAW VIDEO EVIDENCE TO SHOW THE BALL BECAME DEAD OB.  THEREFORE THE VIDEO THE REPLAY OFFICAL SAW MUST HAVE SHOWN A PLAYER OB OR SOMETHING OB THAT TOUCHED THE RECOVERING PLAYER OR BALL MAKING THE BALL DEAD OUT OF BOUNDS.  

IN YOUR FOLLOW UP QUESTION YOU STATE "...the Wisconsin defender that stripped and recovered the fumble was never had any of his body out-of-bounds. IF IT WAS A LOOSE BALL OUT OF BOUNDS THE BALL WOULD GO BACK TO THE TEAM LAST IN POSSESSION- BOWLING GREEN.  THUS WE MUST DETERMINE IF AN OUT OF BOUNDS PLAYER WAS TOUCHING THE WIS. PLAYER WHO RECOVERED THE BALL.  IF AN OB PLAYER WAS TOUCHING THE WIS. PLAYER THEN THE WIS. PLAYER IS DEEMED OB. IT IS POSSIBLE ANOTHER CAMERA ANGLE WAS USED BY THE REPLAY OFFICIAL THAT SHOWS THE WIS. PLAYER OB BY RULE.

Replay officals are seasoned officials. While it is not impossible for them to make a mistake, I truly doubt they made their ruling based upon the thinking that the ball was OB because it broke the plane of the side line.  We all (NCAA officials) have to take and pass complex tests (the Collegiate Commissioners Association Summer Study Exam; a conference summer test and the conference clinic test)to be officials.

Again, I find it hard to believe that the reason for the ruling was stated by the officials with the treminology you use.  Clearly the ruling was not articulated well.  This is common when sportscasters or announcers try to explain the rules.  Often times they are wron or incorrect with their understanding or interpretation of the rules. WHAT was the DOWN and field possition.  The Fourth Down fumble might have applied if it was a fourth down play and the QB had achieved the line to gain.

No matter what, I hope you take from my answer that there is no "out of bounds plane" used in the game and it is not a term of art within the game.  Please void this term from your understanding of what makes a play dead out of bounds.

I really want to hear the audio from this game so I can better understand what you heard.  Feel free to follow up with me anytime.  I won't be able to respond until Sunday as I will be traveling and working a game every Saturday.

I hope this helps.

Vic Winnek

Answer -
***********FOLLOW-UP answers:********************

The answer to your Follow-up question #1 is YES.

The ball is loose (fumble not in player posession); the Wis. Player can not "recover" the fumble because he is deemed out of bounds while he is touching the Bowling Green player who is out of bounds.  Possession (firm control or holding) by the Wis. player is not gained by an inbounds Wis. Player. As soon  as the Wis. player touches the ball (while in the act of "scooping it up") it becomes dead out of bounds per rule 4-2-3-a.

Answer to follow up question #2 is YES.
The bowling Green player was out of bounds so he too could not recover the fumble by rule.  However, under your hypothetical question ("could he still recover a fumble after coming back from being out-of-bounds?") the answer is YES, provided it was not a scrimmage kick down. Your facts state it was a first down play for a long run. Thus the answer is YES.

Rule 7-3-4 that you refer to ("reception [by an eligible offensive receiver] after coming out-of-bounds)") only applies to legal forward pass plays, not run plays.

Rule 6-1-2-a,g Required all players to be inbounds during a Free Kick, and if they go OB they must remain OB unless they were blocked OB and return inbounds immediately. Rule 6-3-12 prohibits offensive players from going out of bounds and coming back in to participate during a scrimmage kick down, except if blocked out OB.

Rule 7-5-1 that requires all players to be inbounds does not apply to this situation because that rule referes to substitution and offside fouls.

Thus, there are no rules that prohibited the Bowling Green player from going out of bounds and then returning inbounds to recover the fumble in this situation.

As to the OB "plane" I knew it had to be an announcer, many times they will use terms incorrectly or make up rules or not full understand ruls and then explain them to the audience.  As long as you know there is no such term that is all I care about. (LOL)

Any other questions you have please feel free to ask.
Best Wishes,
Victor Winnek

Answer
John,

Your co-worker is correct about the rules he cites but those rules are not the applicable rules governing your play situation since it is a fumble play [loose ball play where there is no player possession gained by an in bound player.]

4-2-1 Defines when a player or airborne player is out of bounds.  The Approved Rulings I think he is referencing [on FI-17 of the NCAA Rules Book]deal with a player in possession of the ball and contacting others who are standing out of bounds. That is different from the play situation you ask about - that is a loose ball play.

4-2-2 That rule governs the ball in player possession being out of bounds.   The play situation you asked about is a loose ball play where the ball is fumbled and not in player possession.

What do I think?  Well, 1. There is no such thing as an Out of Bounds plane; 2. Loose ball playes are treated a little diferent than a ball in player possession when it contacts something out of bounds; 4. The Rules Committee created Rule 12 this year to allow instant replay to ensure the correct calls are made and still there is controversy with calls.

Best of luck.
Victor Winnek