RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: GPC2 on October 13, 2011, 09:09:24 PM
-
A 2&Goal at B6. Running back A33 fumbles the ball at the B2 and the ball rolls into the end zone. B44 picks up the loose ball in the end zone and attempts to run with the ball. He is contacted and fumbles the ball. The ball rolls out to the B2 where A55 muffs it into the pylon. While the ball was loose after B44’s fumble B77 pulled A55 to the ground by his face mask at the B6.
Is the result of the play a Safety or a Touchback? Our group settled on B 1st & 10 on B3 (we called it a Touchback), but there was discussion that it may be a Safety.
-
A 2&Goal at B6. Running back A33 fumbles the ball at the B2 and the ball rolls into the end zone. B44 picks up the loose ball in the end zone and attempts to run with the ball. He is contacted and fumbles the ball. The ball rolls out to the B2 where A55 muffs it into the pylon. While the ball was loose after B44’s fumble B77 pulled A55 to the ground by his face mask at the B6.
Is the result of the play a Safety or a Touchback? Our group settled on B 1st & 10 on B3 (we called it a Touchback), but there was discussion that it may be a Safety.
A muff can only be a new impetus if the ball is at rest. Thus if it was at rest and thus a new impetus, we have a TB (B-1-10-B3.) If it was not at rest, and no new impetus, then the B is responsible for the ball being behind their EZ the 2nd time, so we have a safety.
-
...then the B is responsible for the ball being behind their EZ the 2nd time, so we have a safety.
How do you figure?
-
How do you figure?
They fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then came back into the EZ. See Reddings 9-59 on page 143 as it is pretty much an identical play.
-
when the ball hit the pylon, it was still a loose ball from B's fumble in their endzone. so isn't that the same as if B fumbled the ball straight out of their endzone (touchback)?
basic spot is B20. enforce half the distance from the spot of the foul.
-
It's not the same thing. The last time the live ball crossed from the field of play and into B's end zone, B was responsible for the impetus - safety.
-
when the ball hit the pylon, it was still a loose ball from B's fumble in their endzone. so isn't that the same as if B fumbled the ball straight out of their endzone (touchback)?
basic spot is B20. enforce half the distance from the spot of the foul.
No, cuz the ball went into the field of play. Reddings has the example.
-
It's not the same thing. The last time the live ball crossed from the field of play and into B's end zone, B was responsible for the impetus - safety.
jg-me, weigh in on my "penalty enforcement" question I posted earlier 2nt. I want to see what you think.
-
They fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then came back into the EZ. See Reddings 9-59 on page 143 as it is pretty much an identical play.
That's the reason I don't get Redding's Study Guide - it has some good info, but also has some of what he'd LIKE to have, not what is 'by rule,' and this is one.
We are now going to establish a running dialog of logic and fact.
If B gets possession in their own end zone of a ball loose from an opponent's pass, kick, or fumble, then, before advancing out of that end zone, fumbles or throws a backward pass that goes out of bounds at a sideline in the end zone or the end line, what is the result?
-
No, cuz the ball went into the field of play. Reddings has the example.
ah. I dont have the reddings book. I thought that if B fumbled in their endzone after a COP, then they "got credit" for the ball having already being in the EZ. that is to say, it's different than if B CARRIES the ball out of the EZ and then fumbles it back in.
so you're saying if B intercepts a pass in the EZ, then fumbles, and A muffs it into the field of play, then A muffs it back into the EZ where its downed by B, it's a safety and A gets 2 pts? philosophically at least, that seems odd to me.
-
ah. I dont have the reddings book. I thought that if B fumbled in their endzone after a COP, then they "got credit" for the ball having already being in the EZ. that is to say, it's different than if B CARRIES the ball out of the EZ and then fumbles it back in.
so you're saying if B intercepts a pass in the EZ, then fumbles, and A muffs it into the field of play, then A muffs it back into the EZ where its downed by B, it's a safety and A gets 2 pts? philosophically at least, that seems odd to me.
I don't have my Redding's here, but I believe that is the exact play they have.
El MacMan, Redding's is written by RR, and he is our rules guy. He is the #1 man for CFO and our rules book. His Redding's Study Guide is simply a book that adds more examples, details, and the best is the explanations and rationale behind the rules. It is the reference we use to clarify things and get the expanded reasoning behind a rule. If you have bought one before and used it for a year and don't like it, not a problem with your opinion, but if you have not used it for a year, give it a try. We use it for references on our test almost every week.
-
MJT,
Let's stick to the question at hand.
If B gets possession in their own end zone of a ball loose from an opponent's pass, kick, or fumble, then, before advancing out of that end zone, fumbles or throws a backward pass that goes out of bounds at a sideline in the end zone or the end line, what is the result?
-
MJT,
Let's stick to the question at hand.
If B gets possession in their own end zone of a ball loose from an opponent's pass, kick, or fumble, then, before advancing out of that end zone, fumbles or throws a backward pass that goes out of bounds at a sideline in the end zone or the end line, what is the result?
Touchback without a doubt. That is not a problem at all. The problems is, that did not happen. They fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then back into the EZ. That is why it is a safety.
-
B is responsible for the ball getting out of the EZ, and when it gets back into the EZ without a new impetus, it is their responsibility and that is why we have a safety. AR 7-2-4-I
-
Touchback without a doubt. That is not a problem at all. The problems is, that did not happen. They fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then back into the EZ. That is why it is a safety.
One step at a time, please.
What is the rule support for the touchback? (Hint: It used to be there.)
(BTW, when I refer to 'rule support,' I mean in the Rules, Interpretations, Play Situations Bulletins, or even a written response from a Secretary-Editor to a specific rules question. Those are the only things that count. Neither Redding's guide, nor any other unofficial publication, hard copy or cyber-published, have any standing regarding NCAA rules.)
-
If B fumbles the ball from his EZ and it rolls OOB's at the 2 yard line, the result is a safety cuz of the forward fumble rule, correct.
I don't have any book with me to cite, but isn't this a touchback?
-
I don't have any book with me to cite, but isn't this a touchback?
Yes, it is. But we'll get to that eventually, as MJT and I progress through our dialog.
-
Yes, it is. But we'll get to that eventually, as MJT and I progress through our dialog.
Yes, it is a TB, my bad on that one. hEaDbAnG
-
Ok men. When I first read the question, I thought TB as well. But, I was curious about if I was correct cuz a forward fumble OOB's by A is a safety when brought back to the spot of the fumble. This is why I went digging in Redding's and found the example saying "B fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then back into the EZ and is a safety."
I know Redding's is not the rule book, but it is based on the book and written by our rules man, although it may have been taken over by another as stated by another. It does clarify, provide more examples, and give rationales.
I wish we could get this to RR to see what he says, cuz his book is pretty clear on it. The question is identical except for it was an interception, not a fumble recovery.
-
Ok men. When I first read the question, I thought TB as well. But, I was curious about if I was correct cuz a forward fumble OOB's by A is a safety when brought back to the spot of the fumble. This is why I went digging in Redding's and found the example saying "B fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then back into the EZ and is a safety."
I know Redding's is not the rule book, but it is based on the book and written by our rules man, although it may have been taken over by another as stated by another. It does clarify, provide more examples, and give rationales.
I wish we could get this to RR to see what he says, cuz his book is pretty clear on it. The question is identical except for it was an interception, not a fumble recovery.
MJT, humor me. Continue our dialog and answer the current question at hand - what is the rule support for the touchback?
-
MJT, humor me. Continue our dialog and answer the current question at hand - what is the rule support for the touchback?
Sorry, thought I did, but with all the stuff since I need you to clarify what exactly you want me to give rules support to for a TB?
-
Can I continue the dialog, as I think this has been ruled by JA and/or RR to be a safety as the impetus for the ball last being in the end zone is from the team B fumble (the momentum exception rule spells this out).
The rule support for the last question about a touchback after a fumble that remains in the end zone is 8-6-1-a.
-
2011 CFO Play Interpretations 1 Momentum Exception
10. B47 intercepts a pass at the B-3. His momentum carries him into the end zone where he fumbles the ball. It rolls into the field of play. A33 recovers at the B-2 but he is hit and fumbles. The ball rolls into the end zone and over the end line.
RULING: Touchback. Team B’s ball, first and 10 at the B-20. The momentum rule applies only if the ball remains in the end zone and is declared dead there. (8-5-1-a-Exc.)
-
Momentum rule wouldnt apply here. The ball was IN the EZ when B recovered.
-
I believe that momentum is not a factor in either case (athough it does start the example play for the interpretation). In the interpretation, the ruling was a touchback because B fumbled a ball from their end zone into the field of play and it came back into the end zone. The momemtum rule, if a factor, would not have resulted in a touchback. The only way a touchback is possible is if the momentum rule is not a factor.
-
MJT, humor me. Continue our dialog and answer the current question at hand - what is the rule support for the touchback?
8-6-1-a.
-
OK, I'll quit playing around and get to the point.
Forget momentum and all that stuff. The base scenario here is: the defending team catches or recovers an opponent's loose ball in their own end zone, then fumbles or throws a backward pass that - somehow - travels into the field of play then returns into the end zone where it goes out of bounds or is declared dead in the defending team's possession (and there is no impetus put on the ball after the fumble). Is this a touchback? Or a safety?
RR may WANT this to be a safety (and I hear from reliable sources that he does) but to date, he has not changed the Rules & Interpretations or issued a bulletin play to that effect, and I know of no one that has such a written ruling from him to a formal interpretation request. Nothing else counts.
In the mid-90s, this same scenario was formally posed to John Adams, the immediate past Sec-Ed of the Rules Committee. The scenario was posed by someone that, at the time, also believed this would be ruled as a safety, because (as the questioner surmised) AR 8-7-2-III only applied to a fumble/backward pass that went OB directly from the end zone following the fumble. Mr. Adams responded (in writing) by pointing out, quite correctly, that AR 8-7-2-III did not say that the ball went directly out of bounds; only that the ball (ultimately) went out of bounds behind the goal line. As such, unless a new impetus was imparted to the ball IN THE FIELD OF PLAY, the team that put the ball in the end zone from the field of play to begin with is still responsible for the ball being dead behind that goal line. Touchback.
As for my insistence on 'rule support,' strict reading of the 8-7-2-a (only) might lead one to believe that the fumble by the defending team imparts new impetus on the ball. If that were true, then, if the ball went directly OB from the fumble, that would be a safety. Well, AR 8-7-2-III tells us otherwise. It says touchback. And it is the ONLY rule support we have that clearly specifies touchback. But,it has been there for at least 40 years (probably a LOT longer). It is a fundamental rule.
So, let's look at AR 8-7-2-III. Uh. Ummm. Gee. Wait. That's not what 8-7-2-III used to be. What happened? Where'd it go?
Guess what? For 2011, (the previous) AR 8-7-2-III disappeared. Like a fart in the wind. Just disappeared. With no ceremony, explanation, or attention of any kind. So, what rule support do we have now to make the "direct" fumble out of bounds a touchback? I don't know.
So, there you have the facts discussion.
Now let's think logically, and in terms of fairness for the good of the game. Why should the defending team suffer a safety for fumbling or throwing a backward pass in their own end zone? Do they gain advantage by fumbling? Possible, but what is the risk vs. reward for deliberately fumbling in your own end zone? Not very favorable. Do they gain advantage by throwing a backward pass? No more than if they did in the field of play.
Bottom line: Under all previous Sec-Eds in my lifetime, impetus is what put the ball FROM THE FIELD OF PLAY INTO THE END ZONE, and impetus can not be changed in the end zone. That's not only fair and good for the game, it is a superbly simple concept. If RR wants to make his mark on the game, then return the previous AR 8-7-2-III to the book, and/or change 8-7-1 to read: "...whose player carries or imparts an impetus to it that forces it FROM THE FIELD OF PLAY across the goal line...."
Then all of this gets cleared up and made very simple. And fair.
-
I believe that momentum is not a factor in either case (athough it does start the example play for the interpretation). In the interpretation, the ruling was a touchback because B fumbled a ball from their end zone into the field of play and it came back into the end zone. The momemtum rule, if a factor, would not have resulted in a touchback. The only way a touchback is possible is if the momentum rule is not a factor.
In the bulletin play the final reason the ball was in the end zone was the result of team A's fumble, so this is in a sense a normal touchback situation.
Otherwise I have to concur with El Macman, there are no (recent, ie. since 2005) bulletin plays for this particular situation, and one can easily say that the momentum exception is already an exception so team B should not further benefit from their fumble (into the field of play and back into the end zone), making drawing parallels from the momentum rules moot.
-
El Macman, clarity on this would definitely be a good thing. Nice discussion though!!!
-
The old 8-7-2-III
III. A Team B player catches a kick in his end zone, then fumbles and, in
attempting to recover the ball, muffs it out of bounds behind his own
goal line. RULING: Touchback (Rule 8-6-1-a).
The current 7-2-4-I
Approved Ruling 7-2-4
I. B20 intercepts a legal forward pass (a) in his end zone, (b) on his threeyard
line, and his momentum carries him into his end zone, or (c) in
the field of play and retreats into his end zone (no momentum). In each
instance, B20 fumbles in the end zone and the ball rolls forward and out
of bounds on Team B’s two-yard line. RULING: The ball belongs to
Team B at the spot of the fumble (Team B’s end zone); (a) touchback,
(b) Team B’s ball at the three-yard line, and (c) safety (Rules 8-5-1 and
8-6-1).
-
It is a touchback because: 1) We have momentum, 2) the fumble from the endzone went OOB. Had the fumble been declared dead in the endzone after entering the field of play and then went back into the endzone we would have a safety.
-
To lend further support to the concept that impetus is not changed in the end zone....
8-7-2-b-1 EXCEPTION The original impetus is not changed when a loose ball is batted or kicked in the end zone.
8-7-2-b-2 Exception 2 _ The original impetus is not changed when a ball at rest in the end zone is mopved when touched by an official or a player
These both make it clear to me that the original impetus that put a ball in the EZ will not be changed by events in the end zone. Like MacDaddy says....if RR wants this to be different, he needs to do some language work.
-
My correspondance with Rogers Redding last season...
2/6/B-16. B44 intercepts a forward pass in B's EZ and fumbles while still in B's EZ.The ball rolls into the field of play. The ball is muffed back into B's EZ by B45 at the B-4 and out of bounds.
RR Reply...
Safety. By rule, the fumbling team is responsible for the ball being in its end zone on its return trip into the end zone, so the result is a safety. There are those who want this to be a touchback, but I have not seen a justification for this based on the rules. If you have one, I would be interested in seeing it.
-
A thought or two:
To me the basic concepts of impetus are based on two premises. The team last in possession is responsible for the original impetus and impetus is only a consideration as it relates to the final time a live ball crosses from the field of play inot the end zone.
The exceptions cited by Mike apply specifically to loose balls in the end zone. If the ball became loose in the FOP and subsequently crosses a goal line whatever impetus is on the ball at that specific time cannnot be changed as long as the ball remains loose in that end zone. However, if, while in the end zone, the ball comes into player possession that team now must assume responsibility for any new impetus. This seems to be fair and logical since why should their opponent be at risk for a new impetus added by the team in control of the live ball. As long as the ball remains behind the goal line it is simple - the team that put it there maintains responsibility.
However, after a COP in the EZ if a fumble, kick, carry or pass puts the ball back into the FOP impetus is non-issue unless the live ball once again crosses a goal line. If it does cross, the only questions that need answering are which team supplied the intial impetus (the team last in player possession) and was any new impetus added while the loose ball was back in the FOP.The answers to those questions will tell us the result of the play.
If after a COP in the EZ a loose ball goes into the FOP and OOB, it either belongs at the OOB spot or the forward fumble exception applies. Bringing a dead ball back across a goal line due to the exception does not make the fumbling team guilty of a safety in and of itself because that was not the final time a LIVE ball crossed the goal line.
The EZ exceptions to impetus change make it much simpler to offciate these plays. Initial impetus is only subject to change if there is a COP in the EZ and, at that particular point in time, is only a potential impetus change. The exceptions make it more difficult to have a new impetus while a ball is in an EZ but they do not negate the basic concept that the team in possession is ultimately responsible for ball control as it relates to impetus.
-
El MacMan, Redding's is written by RR, and he is our rules guy. He is the #1 man for CFO and our rules book. His Redding's Study Guide is simply a book that adds more examples, details, and the best is the explanations and rationale behind the rules. It is the reference we use to clarify things and get the expanded reasoning behind a rule. If you have bought one before and used it for a year and don't like it, not a problem with your opinion, but if you have not used it for a year, give it a try. We use it for references on our test almost every week.
Just for clarification on the authorship of the study guide, while the Redding Study Guide still carries his name it is clearly disclosed that Rogers Redding is no longer the author.
-
OK, well that would be the written ruling to a formal interpretations request. First one I've heard of. Thanks for sharing that.
Like I said, RR clearly WANTS this to be a safety, and there is your support for making it such, should it happen. However, he leaves the door open for showing him the "error of his ways," so to speak. RR is a good man, but he is simply wrong on this specific aspect of how the game should be played. The crusade is on....
My correspondance with Rogers Redding last season...
2/6/B-16. B44 intercepts a forward pass in B's EZ and fumbles while still in B's EZ.The ball rolls into the field of play. The ball is muffed back into B's EZ by B45 at the B-4 and out of bounds.
RR Reply...
Safety. By rule, the fumbling team is responsible for the ball being in its end zone on its return trip into the end zone, so the result is a safety. There are those who want this to be a touchback, but I have not seen a justification for this based on the rules. If you have one, I would be interested in seeing it.
-
OK, well that would be the written ruling to a formal interpretations request. First one I've heard of. Thanks for sharing that.
Like I said, RR clearly WANTS this to be a safety, and there is your support for making it such, should it happen. However, he leaves the door open for showing him the "error of his ways," so to speak. RR is a good man, but he is simply wrong on this specific aspect of how the game should be played. The crusade is on....
You can go on your personal crusade if you see fit but I think his ruling makes total sense with "how the game should be played". Once B allows the ball to leave the end zone I don't see how we can say it entering the end zone the second time is the responsibility of Team A. How is it much different from Team B taking a step into the field of play and then retreating?
deadhorse:
-
Redding's is written by RR, and he is our rules guy. He is the #1 man for CFO and our rules book.
Whether its written by him or not, it isn't what the law would call binding authority. He wrote the book prior to being rules editor, and the NCAA hasn't made it part of their authorized rulings. Without specific rules references, you can't say Reddings is the only reference.
His guide is similar to a law review article: it isn't anything that can be relied upon in a court motion, but it can provide a roadmap for arguments made in such a motion.