Momentum Exception?

[BetweenTheLines]

B2 intercepts A's forward pass on his own 2 yard line and his momentum carries him into his end zone where he fumbles and B21 recovers and then the ball becomes dead in B21s possession. Is B still afforded the exception?

[prab]

Yes

[ilyazhito]

Yes. The only cases where that would not be true would be if the ball were fumbled out of bounds, or if A recovered the ball.

[BetweenTheLines]

In response to the post by ilyazhito: If the ball is fumbled out of bounds is not the momentum rule is still in effect?

[Ralph Damren]

MO' is still around if B fumbles in EZ & ball goes OOB. 8-5-2a exception.

[Ralph Damren]

To clarify my above post....

If the fumble goes OOB in END ZONE, Mo' would still be in town.

If the fumble in the EZ returns into field of play (remember -not being round-the ball doesn't always take a true bounce) and goes OOB @ B's 2, Mo' has left the building and B takes the ball there.

Hope that helps.

[ilyazhito]

Ok, out of bounds in the field of play would cancel the momentum exception, for the ball somehow went forward.

[CalhounLJ]

Well, mo wasn’t cancelled because the ball moved forward. It was canceled because it went oob in the field of play. I understand the one couldn’t happen without the other, but the distinction is important.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

If a player with the ball leaves the end zone after entering through the momentum exception, the exception is lost, because the momentum that carried the ball into the end zone is over. Wouldn't the same thing apply for a forward fumble out of bounds through the field of play, because the ball left the end zone, and the original momentum that put it into the end zone ended?

[NVFOA_Ump]

B2 intercepts A's forward pass on his own 2 yard line and his momentum carries him into his end zone where he fumbles and the fumble immediately rolls back out of the end zone into the field of play.   During an extended loose ball scrum in the field of play the ball is muffed by multiple players of both teams and finally rolls back into the EZ and B21 recovers while on the ground in the end zone. What do we have?

[AlUpstateNY]

A careful, thorough and deliberative, study of NFHS 2-13 (Articles 1 through 4) will provide you with a worthwhile understanding of the implications of "Force" and should help provide guidance in dealing with any, and hopefully all, the hypothetical possibilities presented by this rule.

[Stinterp]

B2 intercepts A's forward pass on his own 2 yard line and his momentum carries him into his end zone where he fumbles and the fumble immediately rolls back out of the end zone into the field of play.   During an extended loose ball scrum in the field of play the ball is muffed by multiple players of both teams and finally rolls back into the EZ and B21 recovers while on the ground in the end zone. What do we have?

Momentum exception is off. 
It depends on what team supplied the force that put the ball back into the endzone.  If Team B supplied the force, then a safety, If Team A then a touchback.

[bama_stripes]

B2 intercepts A's forward pass on his own 2 yard line and his momentum carries him into his end zone where he fumbles and the fumble immediately rolls back out of the end zone into the field of play.   During an extended loose ball scrum in the field of play the ball is muffed by multiple players of both teams and finally rolls back into the EZ and B21 recovers while on the ground in the end zone. What do we have?

Assuming no new force was added, B’s fumble is what caused the ball to go into the EZ, resulting in a safety.  That will be a tough sell to B’s coach, since B’s fumble caused the ball to go out of the EZ first, thus negating the MX.

[Ralph Damren]

In 1982 "Ole Mo" arrived in our rule books. In it's original form, only airborne kicks and pass interceptions were included. Prior to that if a pass was intercepted or kick caught outside of the endzone, with the momentum of the player carried him back into his endzone, he would have to scamper back out or it would be a safety. The only chance for a touchback would be if the force of the pass or kick drove the player back into his endzone. Some officials would rule that the powerful force of the puny little ball drove the player back.

By adding "ole' mo'", the team in possession was not unfairly hit with a safety; nor was the opponents hit with a touchback if the ball was possessed inside the 5 but outside the goal line. The rule since has expanded to include other events such as fumbles, grounded kicks and the like. Things to remember about "ole' mo" :

(1) The player's momentum has to have brought him back into the EZ, not if he was running in the field of play and reversing into the EZ.
(2) Possession has to be gained inside the 5.
(3) A player juggling a pass/ fumble into the endzone hasn't yet gained possession= touchback.
(4) A player juggling a kick into the endzone kills the play as a kick has entered the EZ =touchback.
(5) Ole' mo' leaves the building if player fumbles and ball goes OOB or is recovered in the field of play.

Hope this helps.

[BetweenTheLines]

It seems to me that since the loss of possession took place while B was in the end zone this fumble does not satisfy the rule (from the field of play toward the goal line), therefore the original momentum has not been spent. B's ball at the original spot of recovery the 2 yard line.

[Ralph Damren]

It seems to me that since the loss of possession took place while B was in the end zone this fumble does not satisfy the rule (from the field of play toward the goal line), therefore the original momentum has not been spent. B's ball at the original spot of recovery the 2 yard line.

IMHO, Player with ball leaves EZ = mo' gone, ball only leaves EZ = mo' gone. If mo' was allowed to continue with loose ball back into the field of play, a recovery by A/K would be nullified. Seems to make more sense to nullify mo'.

[NVFOA_Ump]

IMHO, Player with ball leaves EZ = mo' gone, ball only leaves EZ = mo' gone. If mo' was allowed to continue with loose ball back into the field of play, a recovery by A/K would be nullified. Seems to make more sense to nullify mo'.

If A/K recovered wouldn't MX would be cancelled since B did not have possession when ball was declared dead, regardless of where (EZ or field of play) A/K recovered?

[Ralph Damren]

If A/K recovered wouldn't MX would be cancelled since B did not have possession when ball was declared dead, regardless of where (EZ or field of play) A/K recovered?

Yes, of course, I shouldn't  have used that as part of the comparison of a loose ball reentering the field of play. Of course, if R/B carries the ball into their own end zone and fumbles with recovery by K/A, it's time to strike up the band....

  (5-man crew)

[Magician]

It seems to me that since the loss of possession took place while B was in the end zone this fumble does not satisfy the rule (from the field of play toward the goal line), therefore the original momentum has not been spent. B's ball at the original spot of recovery the 2 yard line.

Force always applies when the ball goes from the field of play into the end zone. One of the teams has to be responsible for it being there. In this example it crossed the goal line twice. The first time was when B carried it across. If the ball stays in the EZ and becomes dead there by rule in team B's possession it's a safety. EXCEPT for the momentum exception. Then it goes back to the original spot. Keep in mind the exception is so the play doesn't result in a safety.

If B fumbles it in the end zone and it leaves, now the momentum exception is off because one requirement is the ball must remain there. If there is a scrum and the ball comes back into the end zone, now the fumble is the force that put the ball there. If you have a bat or kick or one team obviously muffs a ball that is nearly at rest (last more by philosophy) then that team would be responsible if B recovered it or it goes OOB in the end zone. The original run or pass is over so it no longer applies.