Crossing the Line of Scrimmage Without a Clean Exchange

jimbarola

jimbarola

Six-man fan
This happened against us last year and I want to understand it correctly for the coming season. Our opponent had a 4th and long from their own 10yd line. They decided to punt but the punter bobbled the snap, when he regained control he just took off running without a clean exchange (Sixman). The refs call an illegal pay, assessed a 5 yard penalty, and allowed our opponent replay 4th down, where they punted successfully the 2nd time around.

I argued, and It is my understanding, that such a play should have resulted in a 5 yard penalty and loss of down, giving our team a 1st down from my opponents 5 yd line. I'm I wrong?
 
I saw a game last year where in on an XP this happened. The kicking team ran the ball in without an exchange. The officials ruled the penalty could be accepted, allowing the team to retry the point after or decline the penalty and the point stays.
It was Fort Worth TASO. My understanding is if accepted and loss of down the play is over with and no points awarded, but I am now an official….
 
You are correct. Illegal advancement carries a loss of down. Any penalty that includes loss of down means the try is not replayed. This would also include fouls like illegal forward pass, illegal batting, or illegal touching.
 
As the discussion (good discussion) continues regarding this subject of the ball being advanced without a legal exchange make sure to remember that it's only a 5 yard penalty if the advancement was done intentionally. For example, the player taking the snap (QB) muffs the snap and the ball rolls forward 2 yards past the line of scrimmage where the center then falls on the ball. In this scenario, and since it was not an intentional advancement, there would not be a 5 yard penalty but rather just a loss of down from the previous spot.
 
Be careful with that. Intent has nothing to do with it. The only time it does not carry a 5 yard penalty is if *the snap* is caught or recovered beyond the neutral zone and the ball is not advanced. So yes, your example would not carry a yardage penalty. But say there’s a fumble in the backfield and the ball is recovered by the offense beyond the neutral zone and the player is down when he recovers it. There would still be a 5 yard penalty even though there was no advance after the recovery because it was a fumble, not the snap that was recovered.
 
@legacy I'm not sure agree with that - Exception 13 is pretty clear that the penalty is LOD + 5 yards only if the Team A player who recovered advances, or attempts to advance the ball.

4/1 @ B25. A22 receives the snap, then fumbles the ball forward to the B22. A45 recovers the ball and is grounded at the B22. There is no foul for advancement; the ball is immediately dead to the 4th down fumble rule being in effect... I'd rule that in this case the exchange was completed when he recovered the ball, thus the 4th down fumble rule would apply - ball is dead at spot of recovery; no foul or attempted advancement.

That's my (initial) answer - going to dig into this some more as while I think that's correct, I am already having some doubts/questions about it.
 
Exception 13 specifically only applies to the snap being caught or recovered beyond the neutral zone. In your situation, it would not be the snap that was recovered, rather a fumble after the snap had already been possessed. When A45 recovers the ball, Team A has illegally advanced the ball beyond the neutral zone.

But besides that, how can you rule that a legal exchange occurred prior to the ball crossing the neutral zone (Exception 12) when the ball was recovered beyond the neutral zone? And because Team A did not have a legal exchange and there was no forward pass caught, the 4th down fumble rule can’t apply. Exception 6 and AR XII say that there must be an exchange or the ball must be legally beyond the neutral zone for the 4DFR to apply.
 
Scratch previous post... all very valid points. (see other forum) what is tripping me up, is the logic behind tacking on a 5-yard foul for something that 11-man doesn't (a fumble bouncing forward).
 
dammitbobby said:
Scratch previous post... all very valid points. (see other forum) what is tripping me up, is the logic behind tacking on a 5-yard foul for something that 11-man doesn't (a fumble bouncing forward).
Click to expand...
Because it would incentivize such an "accident" for a QB to drop a snap and land on it on a 4th and short or goal 2 go situation. Essentially a QB sneak which is not legal in 6-man.

Edit: Because it would lack a clean exchange, which is the biggest rule difference from 11 to 6.

I think I understand what you are asking but not sure.
 
Coach Cooley said:
Because it would incentivize such an "accident" for a QB to drop a snap and land on it on a 4th and short or goal 2 go situation. Essentially a QB sneak which is not legal in 6-man.

Edit: Because it would lack a clean exchange, which is the biggest rule difference from 11 to 6.

I think I understand what you are asking but not sure.
Click to expand...
Remove the 4th down fumble rule and clean exchange rule - it's just odd to me that we penalize the way a ball bounces in one set of rules, but not another.

Legacy has the correct answer BTW. Sometimes I get in the way of myself and make simple things hard.
 
Back
Top