BeldarBlog

About that Longhorn one-point safety

I don't do a lot of sports blogging as a rule. I'm a fan, but in moderation, and don't bring any particular knowledge or skills base to my sports blogging.  But today's Texas A&M versus Texas game may be an exception — one in which the game officials needed a lawyer on the spot to help persuade the ABC Sports commentators that the officials knew whereof they spoke.

As best I could tell, here's what happened:  Early in the second half, Texas blocked an Aggie punt, recovered it, and advanced it for a touchdown. Texas' regular placekicking holder was out with an injury; the backup holder bobbled the snap and Texas' placekicker muffed the Point-After-Touchdown kick, booting it through the offensive and defensive line into (but not all the way out of) the end zone. One of the Aggie defenders recovered the live ball — took possession of it, and advanced it out of the end-zone (trying for a two-point counter-conversion) — and then fumbled it back into the end-zone.  [Update (Sat Nov 27 @ 2:40am): But see the update below: The AP says the ball never quite made it to the A&M end-zone before being recovered by the A&M player who fumbled it into the end-zone.] Thereupon it was recovered, either by himself or by another Aggie, who was immediately tackled in the end-zone. The officials' ruling — to the complete perplexity of the ABC Sports broadcasters — was to award Texas a one-point safety, tying the score at 13-all.

A one-point safety?!? Now if that's not enough to send a lawyer-fan to his web browser, I dunno what is! And of course the place to go is the official NCAA website, specifically to the .pdf file containing the 2004 football rules.

There, on the 101st page of the .pdf file (internal numbering FR-100), we find Rule 8, entitled "Scoring," in which section 1 decrees:

Scoring Plays

ARTICLE 1. The point value of scoring plays shall be:

Touchdown		6 Points
Field Goal		3 Points
Safety (points awarded to opponent)		2 Points
Successful Try	Touchdown	2 Points
	Field Goal or Safety	1 Point

A "regular" PAT would be a "Field Goal" during the "Try Down" that comes after a touchdown (per Rule 8, Section 3), and a two-point conversion would be a "Touchdown" during the "Try Down." The one-point safety (which I've highlighted in red print in the table above) is an example of a "rouge" that occurs during the "Try Down."  Football.com helpfully explains about "rouges" in general:

A rouge is scored if the ball can not be returned out of the endzone. Fieldgoals are live and can be returned for a touchdown. Should the defending team not return the missed field goal out the end zone a single point is awarded to the kicking team.

For example: The first team kicks to the second team. A player on the second team attempts to catch the ball in his team's endzone, but fumbles the ball and is subsequently tackled. The other team scores a rouge, as the ball became dead in possession of a player in his own goal area.

[Update (Sat Nov. 27 @ 1:30am): But see Voice of Reason's comment below, justifiably quibbling with my use of the Canadian-rules term "rouge" for this situation, and my reply immediately below that comment, which contains more quotes from the official NCAA rules, secondary source and historical references, and contrasts with the NFL rules.]

Conclusion: Although it didn't figure in the final outcome ('Horns 26, Ags 13 — Hook 'em!), the refs got it right. And all the rest of us have learned something today!

------------------------

Update (Sat Nov. 27 @ 2:20am): Here's the AP's explanation, as carried in the Austin American-Statesman:

But Texas holder Matt Nordgren dropped the snap, Dusty Mangum kicked the ball into the line and it rolled away just shy of the goal line. In the ensuing scramble for the football, officials ruled that A&M had gained possession of the ball then fumbled it into the end zone.

A&M safety Jaxson Appel recovered the fumble just before several Texas defenders pounced on him.

Game officials conferred for about a minute before ruling that the Longhorns would get a point for downing Appel in the end zone. The mostly orange-clad crowd of 83,891 exploded into cheers once the scoreboard recorded the point, tying the game at 13-all.

But then the AP report cites the NCAA rule for regular 2-point safeties. Heh. I'll claim my post as another episode of blogospheric accuracy outdoing the mainstream media.

Happy Thanksgiving

Since the election, my blogging has been fitful as I've tried to catch up on work-related tasks that I'd deferred due to distraction. 

Yes, I have an opinion on Dan Rather's announced departure from the CBS News anchor chair, but I'm still too angry at CBS News for not firing the sum-bitch outright to spoil a nice Thanksgiving holiday by venting into the blogosphere.

But I'd be seriously remiss not to take this occasion to thank my readers who've continued to drop by looking for new content.  My list of things for which to be thankful today is a long one, but the opportunity to write here — and actually to be read, sometimes appreciatively — is certainly on that list.  Happy Thanksgiving to you all!

Showing up in court

Woody Allen — a source of many wryly wise sayings, despite the abominable wreck of his own personal life — famously quipped that "80 percent of life is showing up."

In litigation, the winning percentage for those who merely manage to show up is somewhat lower, but still substantial. A couple of the tick marks in my "wins" column as a young lawyer came from small claims court cases in which my corporate client — required by Texas law to appear through a lawyer and unable to appear "pro se" as a natural person might have — paid me to show up, and the person suing it didn't.

At that point in each case, I solemnly rose to my feet to make a "motion for entry of judgment nihil dicit" — which in one instance drew a chuckle from the judge and in the other, an uncomprehending stare. The Latin phrase "nihil dicit" — literally "he says nothing" — traditionally is used with reference to a judgment entered when the defendant fails to deny the plaintiff's claim, but can also be used, as best I was able to determine, when the plaintiff files a claim and then fails to appear to present it at trial. Perhaps the uncomprehending look was from a Justice of the Peace with superior Latin skills to my own meager ones, though; regardless, we both agreed that since I was there for the defendant and the plaintiff wasn't, the defendant should win with no further ado.

There are, of course, analogs in the criminal courts, as this story from today's Houston Chronicle indicates:

After demanding her day in court, Shannon Rechter decided not to show up.

The 38-year-old mother who claimed she was assaulted in the carpool line of a west Houston private school did not come to municipal court Wednesday morning for the scheduled trial of Sandra Chiang.

Chiang, a 40-year-old mother of two, was accused of slapping Rechter in the face for cutting in the carpool line on Dec. 13, 2003.

But without Rechter to testify, the misdemeanor assault charge was dismissed....

Rechter's absence came as a surprise after she had vigorously pursued the case by calling police, filing charges, frequently calling the city prosecutor's office and complaining that officials at the school did not take her claims seriously.

She said she gave up after another parent from school refused to testify on her behalf.

"Without a witness, I had no case," Rechter explained Wednesday afternoon, when reached by telephone.

Of course, at least in this particular courtroom, Ms. Rechter technically "had no case" either with or without supporting witnesses. Despite the Chronicle's misleading headline — "Plaintiff fails to show up for trial of carpool mom" — Ms. Rechter wasn't a "plaintiff," nor in charge of the case, but rather the "complaining witness" whose claims had prompted a (probably justifiably reluctant) prosecutor to press charges. The case belonged to the City of Houston, for an alleged offense against the peace and dignity of the City — not to Ms. Rechter.

What annoys most people about this story is the notion of going to court over a childish squabble that may or may not have involved physical contact, but in no one's version of events involved any damage more lasting than a briefly reddened cheek (perhaps from a slap, perhaps from anger). What particularly annoys me, though, is the notion that Ms. Rechter went so far out of her way to start the wheel of the criminal justice system rolling, and then hijacked the prosecutor's decision over whether to proceed. She wasted my tax dollars by treating the criminal justice system as if it were her own to control.  That's a poor lesson for a parent to teach her children.