Safety or Touchback

[jg-me]

For those who still think force cannot originate from an end zone and/or who think there is no ruling to refer to - please read Case Book play 8-5-1 Situation C.

[tempestos]

JG,

That is the best argument yet for a safety because the way that case play is worded it appears to support that view.  I agree with the ruling of a Safety in 8-5-1 Sit. C and that ruling is consistent with what I've been arguing.  The last act that put the ball in the end zone was the Team K snap and the last action on the ball was the Team K scrimmage kick.  Because there was no possession or other action on the ball relevant to force in the field of play, this play should be treated the same as if Team K's kick never left the end zone and was recovered by Team K there, which would be a Safety.

I think the wording of the reasoning in the ruling is suspect, but the ruling itself makes sense.

[mbyron]

Because there was no possession or other action on the ball relevant to force in the field of play, this play should be treated the same as if Team K's kick never left the end zone and was recovered by Team K there, which would be a Safety.

That's wrong: if the kick had never left the end zone, the force putting the ball would be the snap. That would explain why it's a safety if the kick never leaves the end zone.

Since the kick DID leave the end zone, we must find a new force explaining how the ball RE-entered the EZ. That force is the kick. Still a safety, but different force. The case proves that a force responsible for putting the ball in the EZ CAN originate in the EZ.

You tried to defend your intuition that the OP should be ruled a touchback. Now it's time to let it go.

[Curious]

I'll give "tempestos" (very descriptive "handle") one thing....he's persistent.

Wrong (in this case); but persistent!

[ny_ftbl_ref]

Hello gentlemen
After much deliberation, I submit that the correct result in this play is that it is a touchback
We are all trying to use force as a guideline for why this would be a safety. But we have all agreed that the rule specifically states the term force is used only in connection with the goal line
and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end zone. Initial force
results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap
Since the definition of force cannot be applied for a ball going from the end zone into the field of play the fumble is NOT an initial force NOR is it a new force – by definition straight from the book
Since there is no new force by the fumble this play is the same as; B1 intercepts a pass in his end zone. He starts to run it out but fumbles. B2 attempts to catch the airborne fumble in the end zone where B3 falls on it. What do we have?  Obviously a touchback
We are trying to use an intricate knowledge of the rules to make too much of a simple situation. 
Intercepted in the end zone, fumbled and recovered in the end zone, 1st and ten on the 20 for “B”

[Atlanta Blue]

Hello gentlemen
After much deliberation, I submit that the correct result in this play is that it is a touchback

Keep deliberating.  I have two state directors and a member of the National rules committee that all say it's a safety.

[SanDiegoStryker]

I really don't see how anyone could read this entire thread and still come up with touchback.

Since the definition of force cannot be applied for a ball going from the end zone into the field of play the fumble is NOT an initial force NOR is it a new force

This sentence is not correct. Did you read Case Book 8.5.1 Situation C as suggested? It specifically says, if the ball is kicked from in the end zone and then muffed back into the end zone then the force that put the ball in the end zone was the kick. It's right there... straight from the book. So a force that originates in the end zone, and puts the ball out of the end zone, can still be responsible for putting it back into the end zone.

[7rav1s]

AB had it right in the first reply of the thread. Maybe breaking the down into its plays will make it clear:
Play 1) Loose ball play during which ball crosses goal line (A passes)
Play 2) Running play during which ball crosses goal line again (B intercepts, runs, and fumbles)
Play 3) Running play of zero length (B falls on ball)

No matter how convoluted play 2 is, under zero circumstances can the force in play 1 be the same as the force in play 2, they are separate plays. One force cannot be part of multiple plays. Force goes in one direction, but the location of the player that exerted the energy is irrelevant.

Clear safety.

[Curious]

AB had it right in the first reply of the thread. Maybe breaking the down into its plays will make it clear:
Play 1) Loose ball play during which ball crosses goal line (A passes)
Play 2) Running play during which ball crosses goal line again (B intercepts, runs, and fumbles)
Play 3) Running play of zero length (B falls on ball)

No matter how convoluted play 2 is, under zero circumstances can the force in play 1 be the same as the force in play 2, they are separate plays. One force cannot be part of multiple plays. Force goes in one direction, but the location of the player that exerted the energy is irrelevant.

Clear safety.

DAMN GUYS!!!!!  That's what I said on the 4th post in this thread...............

[bama_stripes]

OK, I know I'm late to this thread, and being very simplistic, but...

There are only 2 forces in this entire play:

(1)  A's pass.
(2)  B's fumble.

Force (1) obviously ended when B  intercepted.  Therefore, we're left with Force (2).

Would anyone here have a problem with a ruling of Safety if B had run the ball to the B-3, fumbled there, and the ball bounced into the EZ recovered by B?

[Ump33]

I must admit that my first thoughts on this play was Touchback.

Then I read the post that suggested reading Case Book 8.5.1 C ... A scrimmage kick by K1 from his own end zone is muffed in flight beyond the neutral zone by R1 and rebounds into the end zone where it is recovered by K2. The ball becomes dead in the end zone when K2 is tackled there. RULING: This is a safety because the force which put the ball into the end zone was still the kick by K1. R will be awarded 2 points and K will free kick from K’s 20-yard line. (8-5-2b)

8.5.1 C References 8-5-2 . . . It is a safety when:
b. A player who is either in the field of play or in his end zone, forces a loose ball from the field of play to or across his goal line by his kick, pass, fumble, snap or by a new force to a grounded loose ball with his muff or bat or illegal kick (when the penalty is declined), provided the ball becomes dead there in his team’s possession (including when the ball is declared dead with no player in possession), or the ball is out of bounds when it becomes dead on or behind their goal line. This does not apply to a legal forward pass which becomes incomplete.

The Rule & Case Play both clearly state it is possible for a player in his on end zone to be responsible for forcing the ball from the field of play "to or across his goal line."


 

[skip1]

I accomplished what I set out to do. There has been a lot of discussion about force that a lot of officials never look at.  Hopefully this never happens to me but if it does I will deem it a touch back. That is until someone from the NFHS rules committee tells me differently. Using the kick out of the end zone as a justification for a safety just doesn't do it for me. If K attempts a kick out of the end zone and is tackled there it is a safety. If someone intercepts a pass and is downed in the end zone it is a touch back. Just because a fumble leaves the end zone doesn't mean that there is a new force. Force is only a factor on a grounded fumble, kick or backward pass.

Atlanta Blue. I would really like to talk to the NFHS rules guy that you know.

[mbyron]

Using the kick out of the end zone as a justification for a safety just doesn't do it for me. If K attempts a kick out of the end zone and is tackled there it is a safety.

Doesn't do it for you? I don't think you understand the point. The question was: can the force that puts the ball in the EZ originate in EZ? The answer is yes.

The case play had nothing to do with being tackled in the EZ. If K kicks the ball out of the EZ, R (in the field of play) muffs it back into the EZ, no new force has been added. The only possible force is the kick, which originated in the EZ. That answers the original question.

This play is a safety, because K provided the force that put the ball in the EZ. When B fumbles the ball out of the EZ and the fumble is the force that subsequently puts the ball in the EZ, it's a safety too.

If you don't follow this reasoning, I don't see why some authoritative personage declaring it so would do it for you.

[cducote]

Keep on, with the force don't stop
Don't stop til you get enough
Keep on, with the force don't stop
Don't stop til you get enough

5 Internet points to whoever can identify the above 

[VALJ]

Michael Jackson is worth 5 points?

[cducote]

OK OK................10