Question about Force after an errant snap.

[Fatso]

Reviewing a question from last year where A's snap sails over QB's head. Several players muff the bouncing ball which goes thru A's end zone and over the end line.  Ball was last muffed by team B in the field of play.  What is the result of the play?



Rule 2.13.2 says: Responsibility for forcing the ball from the field of play across a goal line is attributed to the player who carries, snaps, passes, fumbles or kicks the ball, unless a new force is applied to either a kick, fumble or backward pass that has been grounded. 

Am I reading this correctly - a grounded snap is treated differently than a grounded fumble?  What's a good way to remember this?    thx.

[Etref]

A snap is a backward PASS.

[sczeebra]

How is it treated differently? You must judge if the ball would have gone into the EZ from the snap or a new(different) force was applied.

[Fatso]

How is it treated differently? You must judge if the ball would have gone into the EZ from the snap or a new(different) force was applied.

Several players muff the ball before it enters the end zone.  I imagine the snap itself would not have gone into the end zone if not muffed but the question isn't clear. 

2.13.1 says "After a fumble, kick, or backward pass has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff."  If B was the last to muff it in field of play then wouldn't the result be a touchback (if a snap is a backward pass)?  The T/F answer on the test was "Touchback if B was last to muff before the bouncing ball went into the end zone".  I put T but was incorrect.  According to the test, that muff by B was not a new force.

[bama_stripes]

This is a terrible T/F question, since it involves judgement on the part of the covering official.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Agree with bama_stripes here.  This cannot be considered a valid T/F question as this is a 100% judgement call owned by the covering official(s).

[SCHSref]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say safety...by rule. A was in team possession when the ball went through the end zone and across the end line.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'm going to go out on a limb and say safety...by rule. A was in team possession when the ball went through the end zone and across the end line.

And what rule is that?  2.13.2 pretty clearly says otherwise?

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, the question here should be DID the muff by B caused the ball into and out of A's end zone.

IMHO, if the ball was bouncing away from tthe end zone or nearly at rest when muffed by B = touchback

IMHO, if the ball was bouncing toward the end zone when muffed by B = safety

IMHO, A was the fault of the loose ball, they shouldn't be rewarded by giving them a new series via a touchback.

IMHO, Celtics are on a roll, Bruins are hanging on and unsure about the Red Sox. 

[bama_stripes]

At one point, the NFHS Part I exams (in all sports) had become so bad that our state quit using them.  We had supervisors submit 10 questions each, and the director of officials put together the exam.  Post-Covid, we have gone back to using NFHS through Dragonfly, apparently to save a few bucks.

I’m told (and maybe Ralph can verify this) that NFHS uses college students to write the questions.  They are given the rules book, but may or may not know anything about the sport itself.  That would certainly explain some of the weirdness.

[Ralph Damren]

At one point, the NFHS Part I exams (in all sports) had become so bad that our state quit using them.  We had supervisors submit 10 questions each, and the director of officials put together the exam.  Post-Covid, we have gone back to using NFHS through Dragonfly, apparently to save a few bucks.

I’m told (and maybe Ralph can verify this) that NFHS uses college students to write the questions.  They are given the rules book, but may or may not know anything about the sport itself.  That would certainly explain some of the weirdness.

I can only speak for my time on the Editorial Committee (2000-2004). We were each (8 of us..4 section reps, ,chair, vice chair , officials' rep and editor) asked to supply 25 questins with an existing bank of 200 prior. From this questionaire would be assembled. They were screened by fellow members of EC. I recall recieving a call from the then editor with the following discussion:

HE: "You're not an educator, are you ?"
ME: "Spect not,  why ?"
HE: "Of your 25 ,21 were false  !"
ME: "I was trying to be tricky  "
HE: " We are not trying to trick people, just trying to test their knowledge.  "

EPILOGUE: After that, I tried to supply 13 true and 12 false questions. I assume the same procedure is still followed. 

[CalhounLJ]

A good way to determine if a new force has been applied to a grounded ball is answer three questions:

#1. Did the applied impetus change the forward/backward direction of the ball? In other words, did it cause a forward-rolling ball to go backward? Or vise-versa. if it did, it's a new force.

#2. Did the applied impetus cause a stationary ball to start moving again? If it did, it's a new force.

#3. Did the player applying the applied impetus do so intentionally? If so, it's illegal batting/kicking.

In the case of the errant snap, the initial force is the snap, and as long as there was no intentional effort by either team to put the ball in the endzone, they can bat it around all they want, as long as they don't change the initial direction, it's the force of the snap that puts the ball in the endzone. So, safety.

[BetweenTheLines]

In my estimation the determining Factor here is: would the ball have gone into the end zone had no one touched it? Huddle up on the goal line and come up with an answer!

[bama_stripes]

In my estimation the determining Factor here is: would the ball have gone into the end zone had no one touched it? Huddle up on the goal line and come up with an answer!

This.  When in doubt, it would have, and from the original force.

[Fatso]

A good way to determine if a new force has been applied to a grounded ball is answer three questions:

#1. Did the applied impetus change the forward/backward direction of the ball? In other words, did it cause a forward-rolling ball to go backward? Or vise-versa. if it did, it's a new force.

#2. Did the applied impetus cause a stationary ball to start moving again? If it did, it's a new force.

#3. Did the player applying the applied impetus do so intentionally? If so, it's illegal batting/kicking.

In the case of the errant snap, the initial force is the snap, and as long as there was no intentional effort by either team to put the ball in the endzone, they can bat it around all they want, as long as they don't change the initial direction, it's the force of the snap that puts the ball in the endzone. So, safety.

Wouldn't this boil down to whether the final muff by B was a new force or not? 

2.13.1 says "Initial force results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap.  After a fumble, kick or backward pass has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff."  Do you think that wording intentionally includes the muff of a grounded backward pass as a new force while not including a grounded snap?  Poster above said a snap is a backward pass but if the answer to this test question is accurate, then it can't be treated the same.

[SCHSref]

And what rule is that?  2.13.2 pretty clearly says otherwise?

4-3-2 and 2-34-2

[NVFOA_Ump]

4-3-2 and 2-34-2

IMHO neither one of those addresses the very specific question here.  The question here is a very simple one:  In our judgment did an intentional act by team B on the loose ball create a new force that resulted in the ball being in the EZ?  IMHO 4-3-2 or 2-34-2 do not address that question.

[Fatso]

The question here is a very simple one:  In our judgment did an intentional act by team B on the loose ball create a new force that resulted in the ball being in the EZ?  IMHO 4-3-2 or 2-34-2 do not address that question.

I must agree.

[SCHSref]

IMHO neither one of those addresses the very specific question here.  The question here is a very simple one:  In our judgment did an intentional act by team B on the loose ball create a new force that resulted in the ball being in the EZ?  IMHO 4-3-2 or 2-34-2 do not address that question.

This is why officials' conference is so important in a situation like this. Come together and get it right. However, I've never seen a ruling where someone called it a new force and overturned the original ruling. Obviously, an official would have to make the judgement that the muff was considered a new force. The way the question is written, you would have to assume that it wasn't determined as such. Just my opinion.

I do believe my two rule citations address the question.

[NVFOA_Ump]

This is why officials' conference is so important in a situation like this. Come together and get it right. However, I've never seen a ruling where someone called it a new force and overturned the original ruling. Obviously, an official would have to make the judgement that the muff was considered a new force. The way the question is written, you would have to assume that it wasn't determined as such. Just my opinion.

I do believe my two rule citations address the question.

You used the #1 bad word! In our business we cannot and should not be assuming anything.  On top of that trying to answer a T/F question which would require us assuming the intent of the question is simply BS.

[Fatso]

Here's the exact test question, probably should have posted complete wording originally:

On 4th down, team K snaps from the A-20. The ball is snapped over intended punter A2's head.  Several players muff the bouncing ball, which never came to rest or nearly to rest, between the A-5 and the goal line, and a team B player is the last to muff the ball in the field of play.  The ball goes into and through team K's end zone and over the end line.  Ruling: Touchback if B was the last to muff before the bouncing ball went into the end zone.

T/F

[bama_stripes]

This makes it fairly clear (to me, anyway) that the ruling should be Safety, and the answer False.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Here's the exact test question, probably should have posted complete wording originally:

On 4th down, team K snaps from the A-20. The ball is snapped over intended punter A2's head.  Several players muff the bouncing ball, which never came to rest or nearly to rest, between the A-5 and the goal line, and a team B player is the last to muff the ball in the field of play.  The ball goes into and through team K's end zone and over the end line.  Ruling: Touchback if B was the last to muff before the bouncing ball went into the end zone.

T/F

Would have been better to have the entire question to begin with? 

[CalhounLJ]

Here's the exact test question, probably should have posted complete wording originally:

On 4th down, team K snaps from the A-20. The ball is snapped over intended punter A2's head.  Several players muff the bouncing ball, which never came to rest or nearly to rest, between the A-5 and the goal line, and a team B player is the last to muff the ball in the field of play.  The ball goes into and through team K's end zone and over the end line.  Ruling: Touchback if B was the last to muff before the bouncing ball went into the end zone.

T/F

Answer is false as written. The clue is in the phrase, "Which never came to rest or nearly to rest." This indicates no new force. (Read my comments above.) Just because B is the last to muff it doesn't mean they have applied new force. As long as the ball is still moving toward A's goal line, it's still under the initial force of the snap.

[Fatso]

Would have been better to have the entire question to begin with? 

Agreed. That's why I said "probably should have posted complete wording originally".