Author Topic: Safety or Touchback  (Read 33697 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline SanDiegoStryker

  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #25 on: July 05, 2012, 12:28:15 PM »
Force is the result of energy exerted by a player which provides movement of the ball. 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. After a backward pass, fumble or kick has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff.

The force that puts the ball into the end zone is definitely from the B player's fumble. To make this clearer, consider if the player had fumbled the ball on the 1 yd line. Then at the 2 yd line it was muffed in the air back into the end zone. This would clearly be a safety, right?

The fact that the fumble happened in the end zone does not change the fact that the force, energy exerted that moved the ball, came from the B player fumble.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2428
  • FAN REACTION: +90/-14
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #26 on: July 05, 2012, 01:14:46 PM »
2-13-1 doesn't say anything other than "...from the field of play into the end zone."  It doesn't say that the loose ball has to occur in the field of play.

And mbyron's comment about A's muff not being a new force only applies if A muffs the ball in flight.  If the fumble has been grounded, a new force CAN result from a muff.  (Also 2-13-1).

mbyron

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #27 on: July 05, 2012, 01:55:49 PM »
Read the definition of force - don't have a book in front of me, but I believe it is 2-13-1.

Right! 2-13, good memory!

I can see how someone might be confused by this:
"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."

But that does NOT say that force must be applied in the field of play. It says that force is relevant only when the ball goes from the field into the EZ, and we have that (TWICE) in the play under discussion.

tempestos

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #28 on: July 07, 2012, 06:27:48 PM »
Okay, let's go back to the definition of force in 2-13.  Article 1 defines "force" as "the result of energy exerted by a player ..."  Article 1 then states that force is only relevant to balls going "from the field of play into the end zone."

Article 2 defines the responsibility in terms of "forcing the ball from the field of play across the goal line."  Considering Articles 1 and 2 together fairly clearly means that force only applies to players who carry, snap, pass, fumble, or kick the ball from field of play into the end zone.

I understand why some are claiming that the fumble put the ball into the field of play and then, before that force is spent, the ball re-enters the end zone.  But that interpretation ignores the fairly clear reasons behind the force rule.  By definition, a player who fumbles a ball that is already in the end zone can not be responsible for moving the ball "from the field of play into the end zone."

The fumble occurred in the end zone and without any new force being added, the ball was declared dead in the end zone.  It is no different than if the ball had not temporarily left the end zone.

tempestos

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #29 on: July 07, 2012, 06:30:41 PM »
I caution officials to avoid being overly technical here and trying to narrowly interpret the words in the rule.  The rule means what it means and the issue of force is clearly intended to ask who put the ball in the end zone in the first place.  When considering who put a ball in the end zone, it is only common sense that we look at action that occurred when the ball was in the field of play and which caused it to enter the end zone.

mbyron

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #30 on: July 08, 2012, 06:41:41 AM »
Okay, let's go back to the definition of force in 2-13.  Article 1 defines "force" as "the result of energy exerted by a player ..."  Article 1 then states that force is only relevant to balls going "from the field of play into the end zone."

That's correct: force is relevant only when the ball is entering the EZ.

Article 2 defines the responsibility in terms of "forcing the ball from the field of play across the goal line."  Considering Articles 1 and 2 together fairly clearly means that force only applies to players who carry, snap, pass, fumble, or kick the ball from field of play into the end zone.

No, that's incorrect. "Forcing the ball from the field of play..." means, again, that the ball is going from the field into the EZ (consistent with Art. 1), not that the force must be applied in the field. Your unwillingness to consider the alternative doesn't make you right, and your interpretation has no support in the rule.

I understand why some are claiming that the fumble put the ball into the field of play and then, before that force is spent, the ball re-enters the end zone.  But that interpretation ignores the fairly clear reasons behind the force rule.  By definition, a player who fumbles a ball that is already in the end zone can not be responsible for moving the ball "from the field of play into the end zone."

On the contrary, that interpretation squares better with the intent behind the force rule than yours. Your interpretation must go all the way back to the interception to explain how the ball went into the EZ, which is can't possibly be right.

The fumble occurred in the end zone and without any new force being added, the ball was declared dead in the end zone.  It is no different than if the ball had not temporarily left the end zone.

Except for one thing: after the fumble, the ball was ON the field and ENTERED the EZ, which makes force relevant to the question of who is responsible for putting it in.

mbyron

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #31 on: July 08, 2012, 06:44:55 AM »
I caution officials to avoid being overly technical here and trying to narrowly interpret the words in the rule.  The rule means what it means and the issue of force is clearly intended to ask who put the ball in the end zone in the first place.  When considering who put a ball in the end zone, it is only common sense that we look at action that occurred when the ball was in the field of play and which caused it to enter the end zone.

In my experience, people complain about "overly technical" interpretations and appeal to "common sense" when they cannot  find adequate support for their preconceived notions in the actual text of the rule.

I caution officials to stick to the actual text of the rule here, which clearly does not require that the force that puts the ball in the EZ be applied outside the EZ. That's not a difficult concept, and if the rules makers had wanted it to be part of the rule, it would be.

tempestos

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #32 on: July 09, 2012, 12:22:22 AM »
I expect this will be my last post on the topic because it appears that we're debating in circles.  The one thing I hope we can agree on is that some interpretation of the rule is necessary to cover this odd situation.  Someone should ask the NFHS for an official interpretation.  I expect NFHS will say this is a touchback, but if I'm wrong, I'll stand corrected.

My point comes down to whether the action that forces a ball from the field of play into the end zone must take place when the ball is in the field of play.  I contend that it must.  I don't see any logic in claiming that an action that occurred in the end zone while the ball is in the end zone (here, the fumble) can cause a ball to subsequently re-enter the end zone.  That just doesn't make any sense and would be a fiction created by an overly technical reading of the rule.  To me, the rule implicitly contains a requirement that the action that forces a ball from the field of play into the end zone must take place when the ball is in the field of play.

Here, I think this is treated the same as if the ball never left the end zone after Team B's fumble.  The fact that the football momentarily left the end zone is irrelevant for touchback/safety purposes because it was never in any player possession in the field of play following the fumble.

Again, if NFHS says that reasoning is wrong, then it's wrong, but to me it is the clearest and fairest interpretation of the rule.

Offline SanDiegoStryker

  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #33 on: July 09, 2012, 10:36:00 AM »
I hope we can agree on is that some interpretation of the rule is necessary to cover this odd situation. 

Yes, definitely. Official word on this situation would be great to clear things up and end the debate.

the rule implicitly contains a requirement that the action that forces a ball from the field of play into the end zone must take place when the ball is in the field of play

This seems very dangerous to me. I don't think that rule book implies anything. It is supposed to be the black and white letter of the law. If something is not stated I do not believe we are supposed to assume things. Like mbyron said, if they only wanted the force to count if it occurred in the field of play why would they not have written that in the rule book??

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #34 on: July 09, 2012, 10:47:54 AM »
From 2-13-1:

"...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."

I'm at a loss to understand how it can be any more explicit than that.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline SanDiegoStryker

  • *
  • Posts: 100
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #35 on: July 09, 2012, 01:55:23 PM »
You are right. That definition is explicit. It explicitly does not say that the force has to occur in the field of play. It just says that force only applies when the ball moves from the field of play into the end zone. It says nothing about where the force must originate.

For those who say the force has to occur in the field of play, consider this one for me. 1 & 10 @ A-5 yd line. QB A1 takes the snap and drops back, 5 yards deep into his own end zone. He throws a forward pass which is muffed by B24 at the A-2 yd line. The ball ricochets back into the end zone, still in the air, where it is caught by A1 and he is then tackled in the end zone.

This is clearly a safety right? What is the force that put the ball in the end zone? The pass. Where did this force originate from? The end zone. Right??

ECILLJ

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #36 on: July 09, 2012, 02:11:46 PM »
Great debate!

We've got a Safety.  pHiNzuP

mbyron

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #37 on: July 09, 2012, 02:18:12 PM »
For those who say the force has to occur in the field of play, consider this one for me. 1 & 10 @ A-5 yd line. QB A1 takes the snap and drops back, 5 yards deep into his own end zone. He throws a forward pass which is muffed by B24 at the A-2 yd line. The ball ricochets back into the end zone, still in the air, where it is caught by A1 and he is then tackled in the end zone.

This is clearly a safety right? What is the force that put the ball in the end zone? The pass. Where did this force originate from? The end zone. Right??

That's a great play, and it illustrates the impossibility of the view that says force must originate in the field of play. If you held that view, you'd have to conclude that NO force puts this ball into the EZ, since the muff of a pass is not a new force. That's absurd: if the ball goes from the field into the EZ, some force put it there.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1313
  • FAN REACTION: +36/-50
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #38 on: July 09, 2012, 02:21:15 PM »
You are right. That definition is explicit. It explicitly does not say that the force has to occur in the field of play. It just says that force only applies when the ball moves from the field of play into the end zone. It says nothing about where the force must originate.

For those who say the force has to occur in the field of play, consider this one for me. 1 & 10 @ A-5 yd line. QB A1 takes the snap and drops back, 5 yards deep into his own end zone. He throws a forward pass which is muffed by B24 at the A-2 yd line. The ball ricochets back into the end zone, still in the air, where it is caught by A1 and he is then tackled in the end zone.

This is clearly a safety right? What is the force that put the ball in the end zone? The pass. Where did this force originate from? The end zone. Right??

Good analogy SDS!  I can't understand why there are still some who believe this is a touchback....

For those who still do, consider this: where B's fumble originated is of no consequence if the ball leaves the end zone and then, while still in the air (ungrounded), is muffed back into the end zone by anybody.  The fumble is THE ONLY FORCE NOW IN PLAY.  The pass (loose ball) ended when B intercepted; so it can't be the force; and a NEW loose ball was created with B's fumble.

Some point out that it doesn't seem "fair" for B to hit with a safety.  Maybe; but we don't choose to ignore a rule because we don't think it's fair. 

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-52
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #39 on: July 09, 2012, 02:22:23 PM »
I'll add something to this interesting topic. Tempesto may be my fan here....

Similar play - B1 intercepts the ball in his endzone, 5 yards deep. AFTER THE CATCH while he is running out, still in the endzone, about 2 yards deep, Player A2 hits B1 hard in the back/side, jarring the ball out. The ball does a backspin up in the air out to the 1 yard line, then back to the endzone. Player B1 reaches for it, secures possession of the ball in the endzone, and lands on the ground in his endzone in possession of the ball.

Would the covering official who is positioned on the goal line call this a safety since the ball left the endzone ever so briefly - by really no fault of player B1, but instead by a hard (legal) hit by A2? Just makes no sense to call it a safety.

Say player B2 did NOT recover the ball, but rather it went out-of-bounds below the endzone line (after having back-spun at the 1 yard line). Would THIS be a safety too? A jarring hit IN THE ENDZONE with no possession in the field of play by team B causes a safety? I would have trouble selling this to the coaches. Well, I would be able to sell it to Team A's coach, but not Team B's.  ;D




ECILLJ

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #40 on: July 09, 2012, 02:28:26 PM »
Beagle,

I am going with Safety in both circumstances. Enforcing the rules and not selling the calls is our job.

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-52
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #41 on: July 09, 2012, 02:30:36 PM »
I think the main reason I have a hard time calling this a safety is that....

Team B is ALLOWED TO END WITH THE BALL IN THE ENDZONE after intercepting.

If Team B caught the ball on the 6 yard line, and ran back under their own power, then Team B is NOT ALLOWED TO END WITH THE BALL IN THE ENDZONE (i.e. SAFETY)

Since Team B is ALLOWED TO END WITH THE BALL IN THE ENDZONE after an interception, the same force that causes the ball to exit and then enter the endzone should still allow Team B to end the play with the ball in the endzone.

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-52
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #42 on: July 09, 2012, 02:31:50 PM »
Beagle,

I am going with Safety in both circumstances. Enforcing the rules and not selling the calls is our job.

But the rule is ambiguious at this point.

Offline Rulesman

  • Past Keeper of the Keys
  • Refstripes Hero
  • *****
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-2
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #43 on: July 09, 2012, 02:56:30 PM »
But the rule is ambiguious at this point.
SanDiegoStryker's play has me scratching my head and saying the same thing. The rule is ambiguous; at a minimum it contains a small hole.
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1313
  • FAN REACTION: +36/-50
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #44 on: July 09, 2012, 03:01:55 PM »
I'll add something to this interesting topic. Tempesto may be my fan here....

Similar play - B1 intercepts the ball in his endzone, 5 yards deep. AFTER THE CATCH while he is running out, still in the endzone, about 2 yards deep, Player A2 hits B1 hard in the back/side, jarring the ball out. The ball does a backspin up in the air out to the 1 yard line, then back to the end zone. Player B1 reaches for it, secures possession of the ball in the endzone, and lands on the ground in his end zone in possession of the ball.

Would the covering official who is positioned on the goal line call this a safety since the ball left the endzone ever so briefly - by really no fault of player B1, but instead by a hard (legal) hit by A2? Just makes no sense to call it a safety.

Say player B2 did NOT recover the ball, but rather it went out-of-bounds below the endzone line (after having back-spun at the 1 yard line). Would THIS be a safety too? A jarring hit IN THE ENDZONE with no possession in the field of play by team B causes a safety? I would have trouble selling this to the coaches. Well, I would be able to sell it to Team A's coach, but not Team B's.  ;D

Safety X 2!!! (I assume by "below the EZ line" you mean OOB behind the goal line).  Somebody is going to be unhappy; but make sure the "happy" coach gets the benefit of the RIGHT call!  B's fumble is still the force.

mbyron

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #45 on: July 09, 2012, 03:07:58 PM »
SanDiegoStryker's play has me scratching my head and saying the same thing. The rule is ambiguous; at a minimum it contains a small hole.

The rule could be clearer that the force may originate anywhere. But, as SanDiegoStryker's play demonstrates, only one interpretation makes sense.

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 553
  • FAN REACTION: +14/-52
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #46 on: July 09, 2012, 03:25:23 PM »
Okay, let's go back to the definition of force in 2-13.  Article 1 defines "force" as "the result of energy exerted by a player ..."  Article 1 then states that force is only relevant to balls going "from the field of play into the end zone."

The force of a fumble FROM THE ENDZONE TO THE ENDZONE is not a force defined in 2-13. 2-13 only defines forces STARTING in the field of play.

The B player started the force inside the endzone, and the force ended in the same endzone. This is a circular force, not a straight-line force which 2-13 refers to.

Therefore, touchback.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #47 on: July 09, 2012, 03:49:08 PM »
2-13 only defines forces STARTING in the field of play.

2-13 says NOTHING about where the force BEGINS, which is why this whole discussion is taking place.

2-13 also 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 backward pass, kick or fumble
that has been grounded.

So if a player in the end zone loses the ball out of the end zone by a fumble, and with no new force, that fumble is the cause of the ball going from the field of play (back) into the end zone, then that is the force that last put the ball in the end zone.

You say B is allowed ot end the play in the end zone.  That's true, assuming he never leaves the end zone.  Say B intercepts a pass in the end zone.  He runs out to the B5, fumbles, and the ball rolls back into the end zone where his teammate falls on it.  Touchback?  Of course not, it's a safety, because B caused the ball to leave the end zone, and then returned the ball into the end zone.

This play is in essence the same thing.  B legally had the ball in his own end zone, he was responsible for the ball leaving the end zone, and then coming back into it.  He was the one that applied the force that caused the ball from the field of play into the end zone, which meets the requirement of 2-13-1.

Nothing in 2-13-1 says the frce has to START in the field of play, only that we only consider it when the ball goes from the field of play into the end zone.  That's exactly what we are considering here.  There is nothing in 2-13-1 or 2-12-2 that says this should be a touchback.  To the contrary, they describe why this is a safety. 

tempestos

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #48 on: July 09, 2012, 04:00:56 PM »
Okay, I'm back.  Not surprisingly, I agree with Beagle. 

(1) I'll try on more time to explain my point before I get to the plays posted by Stryker and Beagle.  "Force is the result of energy exerted by a player which provides movement of the ball [and] 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."  The only reasonable interpretation of this language is that the player's action on the ball (e.g., fumble, pass, kick) is what causes the ball to go from the field of play into the end zone.  That's just common sense.  When the ball enters the end zone because of an action by the opposition (like in our original interception play), we only start looking at force again once another action causes the ball to re-enter the end zone.  If we have an action that occurs in the end zone to a ball already in the end zone, that action cannot logically cause the ball to enter the end zone.  For force to be a factor, the player action that causes the ball to enter the end zone must occur when the ball is out of the end zone.  Otherwise, you are suggesting that the same "force" can cause the ball to both leave and enter the end zone.  That's nonsensical.

(2) For those who say everything has to be "black and white," you're clearly not reading the same rule book I'm reading.  If that were the case, we would never need case book plays or local or NFHS interpretations.  By definition, a rule book's language cannot be all inclusive.  A level of common sense is necessary.  Do you call a slight jersey grab by the LT a hold if the ball is 10 yards downfield on the opposite side of the field?  Of course not, but by "black and white" it's a hold.  Interpretations and common sense application of the rules is not "dangerous."

(3) Stryker's play.  The action that originally put the ball in the end zone is the QB running into his own end zone while in possession of the ball.  The muff is ignored, so the catch by A1 in the end zone is no different than if the QB threw the ball to any eligible Team A receiver who was tackled in the end zone or if the QB was sacked in the end zone.  This is a safety and the fact that the loose ball temporarily left the end zone is irrelevant.  If anything, that play supports my position.  In both plays, it is irrelevant that the loose ball temporarily left the end zone.

(4) Beagle's play. This play is similar to the original play posted by Skip (by the way, thanks for starting this) and is similarly a touchback.  The only action that caused the ball to go from the field of play into the end zone was the pass by Team A that was intercepted in the end zone.  The fumble by Team B occurs in the end zone and the ball is never again possessed in the field of play.  The ball became loose in the end zone and was next possessed in the end zone, so we go back to what put the ball in the end zone in the first place – the pass.  That makes it a touchback.

I have a feeling that we'll get an official ruling from NFHS on this one to make all of you feel more at ease about calling this play a touchback.

mbyron

  • Guest
Re: Safety or Touchback
« Reply #49 on: July 09, 2012, 04:28:54 PM »
My local interpreter says safety. I'm waiting for the state interpreter.