RefStripes.com

Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: FLAHL on January 31, 2018, 09:42:40 AM

Title: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: FLAHL on January 31, 2018, 09:42:40 AM
K1 is standing on his 10 yard line, in punt formation.  R50 blocks the punt, the ball hits the ground, and is rolling forward (away from K's EZ).  R60 muffs the ball all the way back into K's EZ, and K1 falls on it.  Touchback or Safety?
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Ump33 on January 31, 2018, 12:42:19 PM
Touchback ... the "muff" by R60 is the Force that put the grounded kick across the GL. (2-13-1, 2, 3 & 4).
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: FLAHL on January 31, 2018, 01:07:51 PM
Thanks Ump.  Our study group went round and round and round some more on this one.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Kalle on January 31, 2018, 01:42:33 PM
Don't confuse Saturday rules where the outcome is different.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: AlUpstateNY on January 31, 2018, 03:35:44 PM
Touchback ... the "muff" by R60 is the Force that put the grounded kick across the GL. (2-13-1, 2, 3 & 4).

CAUTION:  NFHS 2-13-1, "after a fumble, kick or backwards pass has been grounded, a new force MAY result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff."
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Ump33 on January 31, 2018, 03:39:16 PM
Thanks Ump.  Our study group went round and round and round some more on this one.
Your welcome. Also, Case Book 8.5.2C and 8.5.3A provide good information for your next study group,
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Ump33 on January 31, 2018, 03:43:16 PM
CAUTION:  NFHS 2-13-1, "after a fumble, kick or backwards pass has been grounded, a new force MAY result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff."
Good point but since the OP stated "...  the ball hits the ground, and is rolling forward (away from K's EZ) ... " I think most officials would rule a new force was applied to the ball.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Magician on January 31, 2018, 04:15:58 PM
Unless the ball was laying motionless before R started muffing it, I would likely not consider that a new force. Don't bail out the kicking team who did nothing right on this play with a touchback and the ball. They were giving up the ball by kicking it and then got that kick blocked.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: ChicagoZebra on January 31, 2018, 04:55:52 PM
Unless the ball was laying motionless before R started muffing it, I would likely not consider that a new force. Don't bail out the kicking team who did nothing right on this play with a touchback and the ball. They were giving up the ball by kicking it and then got that kick blocked.

This x1000. The play originally described is a safety all day.

A true bat, intentional by definition, would be a different story (and a foul as well in NFHS, regardless of direction). But, a muff of a moving ball would not be considered a new force by practical interpretation.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: bama_stripes on February 01, 2018, 06:32:25 AM
The play originally described is a safety all day.

You may not like the concept of "bailing out the offense", but the NFHS rulesmakers have made it plain that this is a touchback.  (Although I suspect that nobody would object if the covering official "forgot" the rule and awarded a safety.)
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: SCHSref on February 01, 2018, 07:33:50 AM
Well, it's still a kick, so I have a safety
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: TampaSteve on February 01, 2018, 08:27:27 AM
ask yourself: what force caused it to go towards the EZ?
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: bossman72 on February 01, 2018, 08:30:41 AM
I'd have to see the play, but by practical application I'd go with safety.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: FLAHL on February 01, 2018, 08:51:44 AM
You may not like the concept of "bailing out the offense", but the NFHS rulesmakers have made it plain that this is a touchback.  (Although I suspect that nobody would object if the covering official "forgot" the rule and awarded a safety.)

You're all bringing up the same discussion that we had in our group.  On the subject of force, a new force cannot be added to a kick that goes into R's end zone, but it can be added to a kick that goes into K's end zone.  As Bama noted, the rule book is clear.  According to 8-5-3b, It is a touchback when “b. Any scrimmage kick or free kick becomes dead on or behind K’s goal line with the ball in possession of K (including when the ball is declared dead with no ­player in possession) and the new force is R’s muff or bat of the kick after it has touched the ground”

I've never seen this play actually happen, but it's certainly one that could occur.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: refjeff on February 01, 2018, 09:26:41 AM
Touchback.  Rule Book p. 68, 8.5.3.b.  Case Book p. 70, 8.5.3 Situation A. 
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Magician on February 01, 2018, 09:31:43 AM
You're all bringing up the same discussion that we had in our group.  On the subject of force, a new force cannot be added to a kick that goes into R's end zone, but it can be added to a kick that goes into K's end zone.  As Bama noted, the rule book is clear.  According to 8-5-3b, It is a touchback when “b. Any scrimmage kick or free kick becomes dead on or behind K’s goal line with the ball in possession of K (including when the ball is declared dead with no ­player in possession) and the new force is R’s muff or bat of the kick after it has touched the ground”

I've never seen this play actually happen, but it's certainly one that could occur.

The difference here is determining if a new force is actually applied. That is an entirely philosophy discussion. You can't have a new force if the ball is still airborne, but once it's grounded you MAY have a new force. The point many are making here is the ball had better be at rest or very nearly at rest (as the case book plays say) to consider it a new force. In very rare instances will a blocked punt that is still a kick result in a touchback for K.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Ralph Damren on February 01, 2018, 11:00:56 AM
I instruct our guys..
 (1) a football isn't round;
 (2) things that aren't round don't have true bounces;
 (3) a ball bouncing away from K's goal line, and muffed back into EZ by R where downed by K = touchback;
 (4) a ball at rest near K's goal line ,and muffed back into EZ by R where downed by K =touchback;
 (5) a ball bouncing toward K's goal line and muffed by R back into K's EZ where recovered and downed by K =.....
 (a) IF R's new force caused the ball to go into EZ = touchback;
 (b) IF the ball would have made it to the EZ WITHOUT R's HELP =safety.

 #5 = is a judgment call, when in doubt, don't give K a break for getting their punt blocked =b.

AND REMEMBER THAT A BLOCKED KICK CANNOT HAVE A NEW FORCE ADDED UNTIL IT'S GROUNDED.

 
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: ncwingman on February 01, 2018, 12:27:57 PM
Common thinking around these parts is that, while it is technically possible for a grounded, moving, loose ball to have a new force applied, it is also technically possible that I could win the Powerball jackpot.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: prab on February 01, 2018, 01:02:44 PM
I recall a fairly recent discussion regarding assisting the runner which seemed to have a similar under current to this touchback/safety discussion.  In the assisting the runner discussion, it seemed that most posters knew what the rule was but decided not to enforce it for philosophical reasons.  In the touchback/safety discussion, most seem to admit that the rule book would call the OP a touchback, however they have decided not to enforce the rule, again for philosophical reasons. 

I am aware of the "holding away from the play" scenario, but do not believe that it germane to either the assisting the runner or the touchback/safety discussions.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: ncwingman on February 01, 2018, 02:46:58 PM
I recall a fairly recent discussion regarding assisting the runner which seemed to have a similar under current to this touchback/safety discussion.  In the assisting the runner discussion, it seemed that most posters knew what the rule was but decided not to enforce it for philosophical reasons.  In the touchback/safety discussion, most seem to admit that the rule book would call the OP a touchback, however they have decided not to enforce the rule, again for philosophical reasons. 

I am aware of the "holding away from the play" scenario, but do not believe that it germane to either the assisting the runner or the touchback/safety discussions.

There is a serious philosophical argument of "When is it a new force?" Just because it CAN be a new force doesn't mean it is. I would absolutely rule a touchback if I know, as a matter of indisputable fact, that B/R put a new force on the ball.

Ump earlier cited Case Book plays 8.5.2C and 8.5.3A. In 8.5.3A, the fact that R1's muff put a new force on the ball is stipulated, so that doesn't help the philosophical argument of when it becomes a new force. However, in 8.5.2C, there is a question as to whether or not the muff resulted in a new force:

Quote
Ruling: The covering official will have to judge whether or not a new force resulted from R1's touch. [...] If the covering official has doubt, he will rule that the force was supplied by the kick, thus resulting in a safety.

This is the key philosophical point. In case of doubt, it is NOT a new force.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: prab on February 01, 2018, 03:40:58 PM
There is a serious philosophical argument of "When is it a new force?" Just because it CAN be a new force doesn't mean it is. I would absolutely rule a touchback if I know, as a matter of indisputable fact, that B/R put a new force on the ball.

Please give an example of what you would consider to be an indisputable fact that R put a new force on the ball in the OP. 
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: ncwingman on February 01, 2018, 04:02:19 PM
Please give an example of what you would consider to be an indisputable fact that R put a new force on the ball in the OP.

I'd have to see it, which is why these internet arguments are kind of silly at times. If a ball is at rest (or pretty much stopped), then I could see a new force argument, depending on exactly how the ball gets muffed -- if only R players are involved and the muff is clearly in the direction of the end zone (instead of a belly flop that causes the ball to bounce at a weird angle).
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: ChicagoZebra on February 01, 2018, 05:07:29 PM
I'd have to see it, which is why these internet arguments are kind of silly at times. If a ball is at rest (or pretty much stopped), then I could see a new force argument, depending on exactly how the ball gets muffed -- if only R players are involved and the muff is clearly in the direction of the end zone (instead of a belly flop that causes the ball to bounce at a weird angle).

Well said!
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Kalle on February 02, 2018, 03:04:14 AM
Out of curiosity, what is the reasoning behind having this rule difference to NCAA? In NCAA things are a bit simpler, only an intentional action (bat or kick) can add new force (impetus). You can pretty easily figure out if an action is a muff or a bat, although there is some grey area there, too.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: AlUpstateNY on February 02, 2018, 09:55:10 AM
The difference here is determining if a new force is actually applied. That is an entirely philosophy discussion. You can't have a new force if the ball is still airborne, but once it's grounded you MAY have a new force. The point many are making here is the ball had better be at rest or very nearly at rest (as the case book plays say) to consider it a new force. In very rare instances will a blocked punt that is still a kick result in a touchback for K.

Well stated, and the key issue.  Determining whether action creates a "New force, or direction" is a uniqueJUDGMENT CALL based on what YOU are observing. Whether, "A new force MAY RESULT from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff" is NOT AUTOMATIC, it's determined by YOUR JUDGMENT of the specific action YOU'RE observing.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: east louis on May 04, 2018, 08:29:13 AM
Touchback B60 responsible
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Docjoe on May 07, 2018, 12:36:55 PM
Comes down to the often misunderstood and misapplied force principle.  "R" muffing the kick into the end zone after the kick has hit the ground pretty much speaks for itself.  The problem, however, is for the crew to be sure that this is truly what happened.  I can see this play requiring some discussion for many crews. More often than not, you'll get some heat from one side if not a question or two.   EXCELLENT question posed.  We need reviews like this before the season begins. 
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Docjoe on May 07, 2018, 12:42:08 PM
Sorry!  I didn't mention that the result of the play is a touchback.  My bad!
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: AlUpstateNY on May 07, 2018, 01:32:55 PM
Under the NFHS code, if ANY legal kick (Free or Scrimmage) crosses the receiving team's goal line, without a player (of either team) possessing it, or the ball becoming dead, while not in player possession, the result is a Touchback (NFHS: 8-5-3b)
Title: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: CalhounLJ on May 08, 2018, 06:36:28 AM
Under the NFHS code, if ANY legal kick (Free or Scrimmage) crosses the receiving team's goal line, without a player (of either team) possessing it, or the ball becoming dead, while not in player possession, the result is a Touchback (NFHS: 8-5-3b)

True, but I think in this case it’s K’s endzone in play


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Ralph Damren on May 08, 2018, 08:02:31 AM
K's end zone is open for bouncing punts. Things to remember from this OP:

** A new force CAN NOT be added until the kick hits the ground...R1 calls for a fair catch @ K's 15 (lousy punt). Kick goes through R1's hands, bounces off his knee before touching the ground, and then bounces off pylon = safety.

** a muff is the touching of a loose ball in attempt to gain possession. Being pushed into the ball, or having a bouncing ball bounce off you is not a muff UNLESS YOU ARE TRYING TO GAIN POSSESSION.

** An added force by R would apply only IF you were SURE the bouncing kick would not have made it to the end zone without it.

WHEN IN DOUBT : Remember K got their punt blocked. Do they deserve a new series at their 20 ?? NOT UNLESS YOU ARE VERY SURE A NEW FORCE BY R WAS THE CAUSE IF PUTTING THE BALL IN THE END ZONE.

WHEN IN DOUBT : If to cheer for the Red Sox or the Yankees during their current series, pick the Red Sox.

Time for some sardine pancakes  :puke: :puke:
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: AlUpstateNY on May 08, 2018, 11:51:21 AM
True, but I think in this case it’s K’s endzone in play 

It is important to understand whose endzone is being threatened.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Bob M. on May 15, 2018, 09:35:11 PM
REPLY: Everyone wants 'consistency' in our calls, but then the Fed decides to leave this specific rule subject to each official's judgment as to whether a new force has been imparted or not. Wouldn't be surprising if a play such as the one in the OP is viewed by 10 Fed officials would end up with 5 of them ruling TB and 5 ruling safety. Is that where we want to be? Put that same play in front of 10 NCAA officials and you'll have all 10 ruling safety. NCAA has chosen to take judgment out of the play and have objective criteria for determining when a new force (impetus) has been added rather than what the covering official 'feels.' Which 'strategy' is preferable?
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: AlUpstateNY on May 16, 2018, 09:10:33 AM
have objective criteria for determining when a new force (impetus) has been added rather than what the covering official 'feels.' Which 'strategy' is preferable? 

Hopefully, there's a HUGE difference between, "what the covering official 'feels.'', and clearly understanding what the actual rule dictates, and being in the proper position to observe what actually happened, to be able to render a proper, and accurate, JUDGMENT.

Often, the job calls for being able (and willing) to make an INSTANT decision, ALONE, on what YOU see and YOUR knowledge and understanding of whatever rule governs the situation YOU'RE looking at, which is why mastering "Mechanics" and UNDERSTANDING Rules should be never ending pursuits.

Initial Judgments can be reviewed and amended,  but aside from instant confirmation, in some circumstances, they usually are not Delayed.
Title: Re: Blocked Punt - Safety or Touchback
Post by: Magician on May 20, 2018, 11:06:02 PM
REPLY: Everyone wants 'consistency' in our calls, but then the Fed decides to leave this specific rule subject to each official's judgment as to whether a new force has been imparted or not. Wouldn't be surprising if a play such as the one in the OP is viewed by 10 Fed officials would end up with 5 of them ruling TB and 5 ruling safety. Is that where we want to be? Put that same play in front of 10 NCAA officials and you'll have all 10 ruling safety. NCAA has chosen to take judgment out of the play and have objective criteria for determining when a new force (impetus) has been added rather than what the covering official 'feels.' Which 'strategy' is preferable?
Are you referring to the NCAA rule saying the ball has to be at rest before new impetus can be applied? If yes, that's similar to the philosophy we teach here to determine if a new force is applied in NFHS. It helps to take away most of the judgement. The team defending the goal either had their kick blocked or fumbled so why give them the benefit of the doubt if a muff happens to put the ball into their end zone. This gets back to the philosophy of "flawed play." Who has committed a flawed play in this situation.