Author Topic: Force Question (Read 5707 times)

sczeebra · « **on:** December 14, 2021, 01:05:55 PM »

Here is one of our questions in SC regarding force. I need some help with this one.
B41 intercepts a pass in his end zone. He starts to run but fumbles while still in the end zone. A2 attempts to catch the fumble at B's 2 yard line but muffs it back into the end zone where the ball contacts the ground and B3 recovers it. Ruling???

KWH · « **Reply #1 on:** December 14, 2021, 01:36:01 PM »

You leaving out just a little to the imagination on your question.
Did A2 attempt to catch an "airborne fumble" or a "grounded fumble"? Since you said "catch" I assume you meant "airborne fumble" but we all know what happens when you assume!
Restated, did the ball touch the ground at anytime prior to A2's muff?

Derek Teigen · « **Reply #2 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:19:54 PM »

i think it's got to be a touchback in anyway you cut it.

sczeebra · « **Reply #3 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:20:35 PM »

Yeah our test writers left a lot to the imagination. I'm just giving it out verbatim. I assumed the writer by saying catch meant that it had not been grounded yet so let's go with that.

KWH · « **Reply #4 on:** December 14, 2021, 02:39:35 PM »

Quote from: sczeebra on December 14, 2021, 02:20:35 PM

Yeah our test writers left a lot to the imagination. I'm just giving it out verbatim. I assumed the writer by saying catch meant that it had not been grounded yet so let's go with that.

I was curious if this was an incomplete test question?
I agree with Touchback and here is why:

A was responsible for putting the ball into the end zone (both times), the ball never touched the ground until after the muff by A2 so...
I am going to say your test writers are hanging their hat around Rules 8-5-1, 8-5-1a and 8-5-3d
They also hung their hat on 8-5-3c not being applicable.

That's the thinking from the left coast

PABJNR · « **Reply #5 on:** December 14, 2021, 04:39:42 PM »

It’s a safety, if the wording of the question was catch, the ball was in flight per definition of catch. A new force can’t be applied to a ball on flight. The reason the ball was in the EZ by rules of force was B’s force from the fumble. There is the note about force only applies in one direction I.e from the field of play into the EZ. If my memory serves me this play went up to Mr Colgate a few years back and he came back with safety.

If it’s grounded it’s easy a TB.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #6 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:00:41 AM »

I may not be awake yet but, IMHO, A put the ball into B's end zone, B hadn't got the ball out of their EZ when they fumbled, they then recovered the fumble back in their EZ = touchback.

IMHO,IF B had gotten out of their EZ and an airborne fumble was muffed by A and recovered by B back in their EZ = safety.

IMHO, if A had caught B's airborne fumble, it would be called an interception. If B's big ole' Bubba was the fumbler, he would have a very low passer rating.

IMHO, it will be a Pats/Buc super bowl. Huntin' dawg has done her morning business, time to go back to bed

.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #7 on:** December 15, 2021, 06:22:57 AM »

Have to go with Ralph here. The Rule 2 definition of force is clear and the original force that put the ball into the EZ, A's forward pass, is still the "force of record" by definition.

A new force cannot be from EZ back into the the field of play: 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., so B's fumble is not considered a new force.

And then, although superfluous in this case: 2.13.3 - The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not considered a new force.

ElvisLives · « **Reply #8 on:** December 15, 2021, 06:59:09 AM »

A word of caution to any of you who are also working NCAA football: This is VERY different in NCAA. Due to the potential of a score, you need to know the difference.
“And that’s all I have to say about that.” B. Gump

PABJNR · « **Reply #9 on:** December 15, 2021, 07:13:58 AM »

Yes I agree with all of that, what I am saying is I recall this play was interpreted by Mr Colgate and he interpreted safety.

I don’t necessarily agree, but the ball was moving from the field of play into the EZ. It can’t be A’s force that put the ball into the EZ as the ball was out, so how did it get back in….B’s fumble. I will try to dig through old emails because I think I saved the email with the interpretation.

EDIT...I have found the email from the federation. I will redact certain information, like peoples names and emails and post.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #10 on:** December 15, 2021, 08:28:42 AM »

The ball came out of the endzone, then back in...

"A2 attempts to catch the fumble at B's 2 yard line but muffs it back into the end zone..."

bossman72 · « **Reply #11 on:** December 15, 2021, 08:32:10 AM »

Quote from: PABJNR on December 15, 2021, 07:13:58 AM

Yes I agree with all of that, what I am saying is I recall this play was interpreted by Mr Colgate and he interpreted safety.

I don’t necessarily agree, but the ball was moving from the field of play into the EZ. It can’t be A’s force that put the ball into the EZ as the ball was out, so how did it get back in….B’s fumble. I will try to dig through old emails because I think I saved the email with the interpretation.

EDIT...I have found the email from the federation. I will redact certain information, like peoples names and emails and post.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I agree with PABJNR. Since the ball leaves the end zone, A cannot be responsible for putting it back into the end zone. B's fumble is responsible. Safety.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #12 on:** December 15, 2021, 08:51:38 AM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on December 15, 2021, 06:22:57 AM

Have to go with Ralph here. The Rule 2 definition of force is clear and the original force that put the ball into the EZ, A's forward pass, is still the "force of record" by definition.

A new force cannot be from EZ back into the the field of play: 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., so B's fumble is not considered a new force.

And then, although superfluous in this case: 2.13.3 - The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not considered a new force.

Sorry, i meant to post my reply here:

The ball came out of the endzone, then back in...

"A2 attempts to catch the fumble at B's 2 yard line but muffs it back into the end zone..."

PABJNR · « **Reply #13 on:** December 15, 2021, 09:09:44 AM »

As promised email chain regarding this play (or a play very similar) and Bob Colgate's interpretation. This is back in 2013, but the applicable rules remain the same. It took a while to find as I remembered this discussion occurring around 17 or 18......time flies.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #14 on:** December 15, 2021, 12:13:26 PM »

Not sure how an old email fits into the picture here to fix the apparent and still current wording problem in rules (based on said email) but I would defer to Ralph as to how this would/should be handled for NFHS. What say you Ralph?

KWH · « **Reply #15 on:** December 15, 2021, 03:49:05 PM »

If, since we agree FORCE is only a factor in one direction from the field of play into the end zone,
How can FORCE be a factor on a fumble from the End Zone back into the End Zone?

I believe I'm hanging my hat on Touchback

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #16 on:** December 15, 2021, 04:18:49 PM »

Quote from: KWH on December 15, 2021, 03:49:05 PM

If, since we agree FORCE is only a factor in one direction from the field of play into the end zone,
How can FORCE be a factor on a fumble from the End Zone back into the End Zone?

I believe I'm hanging my hat on Touchback

Except for the fact the ball left the end zone and then went back into the end zone. Since a new force cannot be added to a fumble in flight, the initial force of B trumps. So technically B brought the ball out and forced it back in. By rule, that’s a safety.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #17 on:** December 15, 2021, 04:49:16 PM »

By rule that is incorrect, since the clear text of the applicable rule says otherwise. Force as defined can only be changed in the field of play. We've had this discussion in the past and the rule has not been changed.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #18 on:** December 15, 2021, 05:54:18 PM »

Answer these questions.
1. Did the ball come out of the end zone?
2. If so, who caused it to come out?
3. Did the ball go back into the end zone?
4. Was force a factor?
5. Based on the answer to 4, whose responsible for the ball going back into the end zone?
6. Did the ball become dead after going back into the end zone?
7. Who was in possession?

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

KWH · « **Reply #19 on:** December 15, 2021, 06:55:40 PM »

If we are going to ask questions, How about these two questions?

1) Was a forward pass intercepted in B's end zone?
2) Did the ball become dead in B's end zone with B in possession?

Then why wouldn't this rule apply?

8-5-3d...It is a touchback when... A forward pass is intercepted in B's end zone and becomes dead there in B's possession.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #20 on:** December 15, 2021, 07:06:05 PM »

I've got a far simpler question. What does rule 2 explicitly say? I've got no problem with the real issue here, it's the rules that do. If you want our rules to be the same as NCAA then I'm good with that, just change the rules. And although a moot point IMHO, how did the ball get back into the EZ? Oh, sorry the rules say that since the ball did not hit the ground, it wasn't A that put it there? Really? And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #21 on:** December 15, 2021, 08:00:49 PM »

Quote from: KWH on December 15, 2021, 06:55:40 PM

If we are going to ask questions, How about these two questions?

1) Was a forward pass intercepted in B's end zone?
2) Did the ball become dead in B's end zone with B in possession?

Then why wouldn't this rule apply?

8-5-3d...It is a touchback when... A forward pass is intercepted in B's end zone and becomes dead there in B's possession.

Because the ball came out of the end zone and then went back in.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #22 on:** December 15, 2021, 08:05:18 PM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on December 15, 2021, 05:00:41 AM

IMHO,IF B had gotten out of their EZ and an airborne fumble was muffed by A and recovered by B back in their EZ = safety.

Isn’t this what happened? A muffed an airborne fumble. AT THE TWO!

"A2 attempts to catch the fumble at B's 2 yard line but muffs it back into the end zone..."

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #23 on:** December 15, 2021, 08:10:56 PM »

Quote from: NVFOA_Ump on December 15, 2021, 07:06:05 PM

I've got a far simpler question. What does rule 2 explicitly say? I've got no problem with the real issue here, it's the rules that do. If you want our rules to be the same as NCAA then I'm good with that, just change the rules. And although a moot point IMHO, how did the ball get back into the EZ? Oh, sorry the rules say that since the ball did not hit the ground, it wasn't A that put it there? Really? And I've got a bridge in Brooklyn for sale.

Yes, really. Consider this play:

A drops back to pass in his own end zone. He throws the ball and B jumps up and bats it at the two. The ball rebounds back into the end zone where it’s caught by A and he is tackled there. Isn’t that a safety?

Yes. Even though B supplied the energy that put the ball back into the ez, a new FORCE can’t be added to a pass in flight, so BY RULE in this case, A is responsible for the ball coming back into the ez, even though he provided the energy to send it out.

Now, in the play in question, the same thing has happened. A is initially responsible for putting the ball into the ez. If it stayed in there and became dead in B,s possession, it would be a touchback. But, because the ball came out of the end zone in flight, B is responsible for it coming out. Because it was muffed by A in flight back into the end zone, BY RULE, B is responsible for the ball being back into the end zone. Because it became dead in his possession and he’s responsible for it being there, it’s a safety.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #24 on:** December 16, 2021, 04:57:08 AM »

Quote from: CalhounLJ on December 15, 2021, 08:10:56 PM

Yes, really. Consider this play:

A drops back to pass in his own end zone. He throws the ball and B jumps up and bats it at the two. The ball rebounds back into the end zone where it’s caught by A and he is tackled there. Isn’t that a safety?

Yes. Even though B supplied the energy that put the ball back into the ez, a new FORCE can’t be added to a pass in flight, so BY RULE in this case, A is responsible for the ball coming back into the ez, even though he provided the energy to send it out.

But doesn't that overlook the most important part? Who, A or B, is responsible for the original force that put the ball in the EZ? In the original case play it was team A putting the ball into B's EZ, in this play it is team A putting the ball into their own EZ, so I'm good with touchback in the original play and safety in this play. IMHO they both correctly track the applicable rules.

Ralph, are you back in with the dog yet? I'm just back in with mine and he's unhappy that it's pouring rain here. Any additional wisdom here?