"Backward" Progress?

[chymechowder]

B20 intercepts a pass 1 yard deep in his own endzone:

a.) He is contacted immediately from behind by A88
b.) He starts kneeling and then is hit from behind by A88
c.) He is pushed forward (the ball doesn't pass over the goal line); he turns around and attempts to take a step deeper into the endzone as A88 drives him over the goal line

In all three cases, B20 is downed with the ball at the B half yard line.

Touchback or B's ball at the half yard line?

Does the defender's intent matter?  If it's clear that he wasnt trying to advance the ball, can/should we credit him for "reverse forward progress"?   Or is it tough luck, Team B, the ball's dead at its most forward point?

Also, would it make any difference if he intercepted it 9 yards deep in the endzone and started running it back?

[HAshleyTX]

In all three I believe the end of the related run is the end zone.  Unless...in example "a"  B is actually trying to bring the ball out when contacted.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'd agree.  I believe that the accepted practice is that given B actually secured possession and control in the EZ, and A's initial contact was while the ball was still in the EZ, that we have a TB.  The only exception to that would be if we judged that B had clearly started heading upfield (out of the EZ) after securing possession and control, and in the process of being tackled B ended up with the ball down clearly outside the EZ.

[chymechowder]

I agree that it probably should be a touchback. [edit: at least in the spirit of the rule.]  

But I don't see the rule to support it.  Unless I'm missing an exception to the forward progress definition.

[NTXRef]

I maybe a minority opinion here, but I don't see how you can call it a TB.   If he is knocked forward, and the ball is completely outside of the GL, then by rule that is where it should end up.   There is nothing in the rulebook that supports anything else.  I don't think that I have ever heard a discussion of point of emphasis that suggests otherwise.   Reading intent on the player in possession is kind of dangerous.

[jg-me]

NTX is correct. There is no rule, philosophy or accpeted practice that would make the above plays a TB. The ball is advancing toward the opponent's GL and it is placed where it is dead by rule. The runner's intent is of no consequence. It may be an accepted practice to place the dead ball completely in the EZ if the ball was not entirely beyond the GL but this practice would have no net effect on the result of the play.

[Getting Fat]

at a minimum, b is a TB.

ARTICLE 3. A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle
or declare it dead:

o. When a ball carrier simulates placing his knee on the ground.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So when B is clearly tackled with initial contact +/- 2 yards deep in the EZ, he has made no motion to return out of the EZ, and he still has his back facing the goal line as he intercepted the ball "over his shoulder" on the fly going in, and then the team A player who is deeper in the EZ hits him in the chest so he lands with the goal line at his waist and he's "down" with the ball at or inside the 1/2 yard line where are you spotting the ball?

[NTXRef]

1/2 yard line.   If this was in the field of play and intercepted on own 48 and gets knocked forward to opponents' 49 1/2, you don't put the ball back at the 48.  Why would this be any different?

[chymechowder]

1/2 yard line.   If this was in the field of play and intercepted on own 48 and gets knocked forward to opponents' 49 1/2, you don't put the ball back at the 48.  Why would this be any different?

well the difference is in the field of play, you want to go forward. most of the time after you intercept in the endzone, you don't want to go forward.

in the field of play we don't make the ball carrier accept an unfavorable position to which he's been pushed by his opponent. we give him credit for the "best" spot that he made it to on his own.

but that's inverted here.

[comicref]

There is this little item from the 2008 CCA Officiating Philosophies (item 6 under "Passing Situations"):

If an interception is near the goal line (inside the 1-yard line) and there is a question as to whether possession is gained in the field of play or end zone, make the play a touchback.

It may not be an exact match to the scenario laid out at the top of this thread, but I would imagine most supervisors would want the same philosophy employed.

[Atlanta Blue]

at a minimum, b is a TB.

ARTICLE 3. A live ball becomes dead and an official shall sound his whistle
or declare it dead:

o. When a ball carrier simulates placing his knee on the ground.

In B above, the runner didn't SIMULATE placing his knee on the ground.  He was trying to go down and got knocked forward.

The rule you quoted is to keep a player from ACTING like he is going to a knee to stop the defense from tackling him, and then jumping up to run or pass.  It has nothing to do with a player trying to take a knee and getting tackled.

[cperezprg]

Similar play:

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=4582.0
PLAY 3

[NVFOA_Ump]

What would be the result of the play if we have the same 2 yard deep into the EZ interception described earlier and the intended receiver (the big TE),  grabs the still airborne B player (the small DB) who has unquestioned control of the ball and:

1.  carries him 2-3 yards "forward", out of the EZ and OB at the 1/2 yard line while the defender is still airborne, finally landing OB from the field of play?
2.  carries him 2-3 yards toward the sideline and OB in the EZ while the defender is still airborne, finally landing OB from the EZ?

[Kalle]

What would be the result of the play if we have the same 2 yard deep into the EZ interception described earlier and the intended receiver (the big TE),  grabs the still airborne B player (the small DB) who has unquestioned control of the ball and:

1.  carries him 2-3 yards "forward", out of the EZ and OB at the 1/2 yard line while the defender is still airborne, finally landing OB from the field of play?
2.  carries him 2-3 yards toward the sideline and OB in the EZ while the defender is still airborne, finally landing OB from the EZ?

These are easy. See A.R. 7-3-6-IV, progress spot is the spot where the player is held. Both situations are touchbacks.

Note that A.R. 7-3-6-IV tells us that if the interception happens at B-40 and the player is held there and then carried to B-45 where he falls to ground, the progress spot is B-40.

[NTXRef]

Good reference, cperexprg!!   That is the exact play mentioned and it says the 3, not TB.

Comicref, your reference is associated with the momemtum rule.   When it doubt it was possessed in the EZ (and in the momemtum case, it was downed in the EZ).   In other words, all actions are backward toward/in the EZ.   I don't believe that applies here.

Bottom line forward progress is forward progress, put it on the 1/2 yd line.

[Getting Fat]

In B above, the runner didn't SIMULATE placing his knee on the ground.  He was trying to go down and got knocked forward.

The rule you quoted is to keep a player from ACTING like he is going to a knee to stop the defense from tackling him, and then jumping up to run or pass.  It has nothing to do with a player trying to take a knee and getting tackled.

Wouldn't this also be applied in a situation where B catches a kick in the endzone, goes almost down to his knee and flips the ball to the official?  I think the call there should also be TB, yet the rationale behind applying it in this situation would be different than where he "acted" like he was going down (ala Texas Tech v. Texas last year at the end of the first half).