RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: skip1 on May 13, 2012, 02:02:37 PM
-
B1 intercepts a pass in his end zone. He starts to run it out but fumbles. B2 attempts to catch the airborne fumble at the 2-yard line but muffs it back into the end zone where B3 falls on it. What do we have? A touch back or a safety
-
Safety. B brought the ball out of the end zone, and was responsible for the force that put it back in. And no, attempting to catch the airborne fumble is not a new force, the fumble was the force.
-
A new force can only apply to a grounded loose ball. This ball was never grounded. If it had hit the ground this would be easy.
-
Correct, a NEW force has not been added, I never claimed that it had. In fact, I even stated it. However, the FUMBLE was the force that put the ball in the end zone, and the fumble was caused by B. What happened at the 2 yard line (the muff of the airborne ball) is basically meaningless.
So B fumbled the ball out of the end zone, and it legally, and without new force, made it's way back into the end zone, so B was responsible for putting it there. That makes it a safety.
-
AB is correct. These are two separate events.
Force is only relevant from the field of play into the end zone.
Force #1: A's pass into B's EZ
Force #2: B's fumble. Since the fumble left B1's EZ and B2 muffed it back into his EZ while in the air, the force remains B's fumble (2-13-2).
There is no "new force" added to either A's intercepted pass or B's fumble.
It's kind of like the punt from K's end zone which hits R and rebounds back into K's end zone. The force remains K's punt (8.5.1C).
-
If K kicks out of their end zone hits R in the air and is downed by K in their EZ we know it's a safety. If B intercepts a pass and is downed in his end zone it would be a touch back. If there is no new force why is it automatically a safety when the fumble is downed in B's end zone? I'm not claiming that I know the answer to this. I posted this because I can't seem to find a definitive answer any where.
-
You and me both, Skip. Does it matter where the ball was fumbled? The initial play says, "He starts to run it out but fumbles", so I'm not really sure "where" he was when he fumbled. If he was out of the EZ, no question it's a safety, but if he was still in the EZ when he lost possession, and the fumble was subsequently recovered in the EZ, the responsibility of the ball's movement is clearly the fumble, which was never grounded to acquire a new force.
Since the ball was fumbled in the EZ, and subsequently recovered in the EZ, with no new force involved, wouldn't the result be a touchback? It doesn't seem that wherever the ball might have gone while it was loose makes any difference so long as nothing happened to it to create a new force, which we agree was still caused by the fumble.
Since a new force is not a factor, this play seems the same as a situation where the fumbled ball rolled out of the EZ, and then rolled back in under it's own momentum before it was recovered. The material spots seem limited to where the ball was fumbled and where it was recovered.
-
Force definitely is a topic that can be confusing. I think it is much simpler if we keep two things in mind. The first is that force only is at issue the FINAL time the ball crosses from the field of play, across a goal line and into the end zone. It matters not how many times the ball crosses the goal line - we only care about the last time. Second, unless there has been a rule change I am unaware of, the spot where the force is intially applied is not a factor - i.e. force can be generated while the ball is either in the field of play or while the ball is in an end zone.
In the play as originally stated, the last time the ball crossed the goal line from the field of play was after the fumble. The fumble was the force on the ball at that time and it is of no mattter that the force was generated while the ball was in the end zone.
-
Let's look at the my favorite rule in the Book Rule 2. 2-13-1 Force
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.
The force in this play was the INT. The fumble that was muffed in the air and no new force was added, the play results in a Touchback.
-
Check your favorite rule again. An interception is not force in any, shape or form. THe interception simply puts B1 in possesion of the ball. His carry and then subsequent fumble are the force exerted on the ball and you correctly point out that the muff does not add new force in this play. There is no getting around the fact that the force on the ball is B1's fumble the final time it crosses the goal line from the field of play and into B's end zone. The force that was on the ball due to A's original forward pass becomes a non-factor once B intercepted the ball and fumbled it into the FOP.
-
The interception came from Team A's pass. Which that pass was the force that put the ball in the end zone. 2-13-1 cont.
Initial force results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap.
. That's the only force that put the ball over the goal line in this play.
-
The interception came from Team A's pass. Which that pass was the force that put the ball in the end zone. 2-13-1 cont. . That's the only force that put the ball over the goal line in this play.
And that's where your answer falls apart. When B fumbled the ball, it LEFT the end zone. It then RETURNED to the end zone via the fumble. The fumble was the force that put the ball into the end zone the LAST TIME.
-
And that's where your answer falls apart. When B fumbled the ball, it LEFT the end zone. It then RETURNED to the end zone via the fumble. The fumble was the force that put the ball into the end zone the LAST TIME.
What if it was fumbled out of the end zone with a reverse bounce and was recovered in the end zone? What would you rule this?
-
Touchback. The rule is pretty clear that a fumble in flight that was not grounded is not subject to a new force.
2-13
SECTION 13 FORCE
ART. 1 . . . 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 fumble, kick or backward
pass has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a
muff.
ART. 2 . . . 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.
ART. 3 . . . The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not
considered a new force.
-
Check your favorite rule again. An interception is not force in any, shape or form. THe interception simply puts B1 in possesion of the ball. His carry and then subsequent fumble are the force exerted on the ball and you correctly point out that the muff does not add new force in this play. There is no getting around the fact that the force on the ball is B1's fumble the final time it crosses the goal line from the field of play and into B's end zone. The force that was on the ball due to A's original forward pass becomes a non-factor once B intercepted the ball and fumbled it into the FOP.
I disagree with this. We agree that the pass was the force that put the ball in the end zone. The fumble is not a new force because it is from the end zone to the field of play and back. Basically, the ball never left the end zone. The force that put the ball in the end zone was the pass.
-
I understand the appeal of trying to mke this a TB. However in your argument for making the pass the force responsible for the ball ending up in the end zone you address the overriding fact - "it is from the end zone to the field of play AND BACK" (emphasis mine). The pass is not what caused the ball to come back into the end zone after it left (and it did leave as you state yourself). The fumble is the force on the ball when it returns from the field of play to the end zone. It's a tough way to give up a safety but B did fumble the ball and, in this play, is paying the price.
-
I understand the appeal of trying to mke this a TB. However in your argument for making the pass the force responsible for the ball ending up in the end zone you address the overriding fact - "it is from the end zone to the field of play AND BACK" (emphasis mine). The pass is not what caused the ball to come back into the end zone after it left (and it did leave as you state yourself). The fumble is the force on the ball when it returns from the field of play to the end zone. It's a tough way to give up a safety but B did fumble the ball and, in this play, is paying the price.
I sent this play to someone I really trust with the rules and they said basically what you did. It is a safety.
-
Guys, the ball left the end zone on the fumble by B. It returned to the endzone because of B's fumble. The force/impetus that put the ball in the endzone before it became dead is the fumble by B, NOT the interception and NOT the muff by the fumbler's teammate.
Since B is responsible for the force/impetus that put the ball in the end zone, this is a safety.
-
I sent this play to someone I really trust with the rules and they said basically what you did. It is a safety.
Harry, you don't trust US?????
Incidentally, you asked a (good) question :) earlier as to whether it would be a Safety or TB if B's fumble hit the ground outside B's EZ, bounced back (untouched - my edit) into the EZ, and was subsequently recovered by B. For the same reason as the original "Safety-call" arguments, this is also a safety. B's fumble (grounded in this second scenario) remains the force. Just because the fumble was grounded, B's force was never spent nor was there a new force added. In this instance, for a new force to be added, the ball would have to "at rest" or "nearly at rest".
See Case Book play 8.3.3 (2011 Book). Similar....
-
Harry, you don't trust US?????
Incidentally, you asked a (good) question :) earlier as to whether it would be a Safety or TB if B's fumble hit the ground outside B's EZ, bounced back (untouched - my edit) into the EZ, and was subsequently recovered by B. For the same reason as the original "Safety-call" arguments, this is also a safety. B's fumble (grounded in this second scenario) remains the force. Just because the fumble was grounded, B's force was never spent nor was there a new force added. In this instance, for a new force to be added, the ball would have to "at rest" or "nearly at rest".
See Case Book play 8.3.3 (2011 Book). Similar....
Yes, I do. But there was disagreement in this thread amongst people I trust. ;)
-
Guys, the ball left the end zone on the fumble by B. It returned to the endzone because of B's fumble. The force/impetus that put the ball in the endzone before it became dead is the fumble by B, NOT the interception and NOT the muff by the fumbler's teammate.
Since B is responsible for the force/impetus that put the ball in the end zone, this is a safety.
I agree with the growing consensus: the ball left the EZ, re-entered, and became dead there. We must ask what force caused the ball to enter the EZ the second time. Since it's B's fumble, the proper ruling is safety.
I will add that the ruling would be the same even if A muffed the fumble instead of B. IOW, same play, B intercepts in the EZ, fumbles out of the EZ, but A muffs the airborne fumble back into the EZ. Still a safety, and good luck selling it to the B coach!
-
This is a touchback. Let's break it down.
(1) The ball is in the endzone because of A's pass, which is intercepted in the endzone.
(2) Team B's fumble of the ball from the endzone cannot be a new force because force only applies to a ball that is already out of the endzone and, due to the force, goes into the endzone. Because the ball is already in the endzone when Team B fumbles it, force is not a factor.
(3) The muff in the field of play is not a new force.
(4) The only force that put the ball in the endzone is Team A's pass, so it is a Touchback.
When the ball is ultimately recovered in the endzone by Team B it is no different than if the fumbled ball never left the endzone and Team B recovered it there. We would all rule that a touchback.
For this to be a safety, Team B would have had to carry the ball out of the endzone and then carry, fumble, pass, or kick it back across the goal line into the endzone. That didn't happen here.
Everyone seems to get caught up on the loose ball temporarily coming back into the field of play before reentering the endzone. That's irrelevant if a new force wasn't placed on the ball while it was in the field of play that caused it to reenter the endzone. Team B would have had to place a new force on the ball while it was in the field of play and that causes the ball to reenter the endzone for this to be a safety.
-
(2) Team B's fumble of the ball from the endzone cannot be a new force because force only applies to a ball that is already out of the endzone and, due to the force, goes into the endzone. Because the ball is already in the endzone when Team B fumbles it, force is not a factor.
Your reasoning is incorrect here, and this point has already been addressed somewhat. Perhaps I can clarify.
Basically, you have it backward. You're reasoning from the initiation of the force being directed out of the EZ to the conclusion that this is not a new force, since force is relevant only when the ball is entering the EZ.
That's backward. The fact is, the ball entered the EZ twice. First, due to the INT. But it subsequently left the EZ, so the force that caused the first entry is irrelevant.
The issue of force arises because the ball entered the EZ a second time (and then became dead). What force caused the ball to re-enter? Not the muff, because the fumble was not grounded. So the fumble was the force.
True, the fumble ALSO caused the ball to LEAVE the EZ. But that's irrelevant, since force is relevant only when the ball enters the EZ. The fact that the fumble is irrelevant to the ball LEAVING the EZ does not entail that it's irrelevant to the ball RE-ENTERING the EZ, or that the fumble is permanently irrelevant to the issue of force.
Hope that helps!
-
Everyone seems to get caught up on the loose ball temporarily coming back into the field of play before reentering the endzone. That's irrelevant if a new force wasn't placed on the ball while it was in the field of play that caused it to reenter the endzone. Team B would have had to place a new force on the ball while it was in the field of play and that causes the ball to reenter the endzone for this to be a safety.
Please show where in the rule it states that the new force must be applied in the field rather than the EZ. That's simply mistaken.
-
Please show where in the rule it states that the new force must be applied in the field rather than the EZ. That's simply mistaken.
Read the definition of force - don't have a book in front of me, but I believe it is 2-13-1.
-
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.
-
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).
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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??
-
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.
-
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??
-
Great debate!
We've got a Safety. pHiNzuP
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
Beagle,
I am going with Safety in both circumstances. Enforcing the rules and not selling the calls is our job.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
My local interpreter says safety. I'm waiting for the state interpreter.
-
For those who still think force cannot originate from an end zone and/or who think there is no ruling to refer to - please read Case Book play 8-5-1 Situation C.
-
JG,
That is the best argument yet for a safety because the way that case play is worded it appears to support that view. I agree with the ruling of a Safety in 8-5-1 Sit. C and that ruling is consistent with what I've been arguing. The last act that put the ball in the end zone was the Team K snap and the last action on the ball was the Team K scrimmage kick. Because there was no possession or other action on the ball relevant to force in the field of play, this play should be treated the same as if Team K's kick never left the end zone and was recovered by Team K there, which would be a Safety.
I think the wording of the reasoning in the ruling is suspect, but the ruling itself makes sense.
-
Because there was no possession or other action on the ball relevant to force in the field of play, this play should be treated the same as if Team K's kick never left the end zone and was recovered by Team K there, which would be a Safety.
That's wrong: if the kick had never left the end zone, the force putting the ball would be the snap. That would explain why it's a safety if the kick never leaves the end zone.
Since the kick DID leave the end zone, we must find a new force explaining how the ball RE-entered the EZ. That force is the kick. Still a safety, but different force. The case proves that a force responsible for putting the ball in the EZ CAN originate in the EZ.
You tried to defend your intuition that the OP should be ruled a touchback. Now it's time to let it go.
-
I'll give "tempestos" (very descriptive "handle") one thing....he's persistent.
Wrong (in this case); but persistent! hEaDbAnG
-
Hello gentlemen
After much deliberation, I submit that the correct result in this play is that it is a touchback
We are all trying to use force as a guideline for why this would be a safety. But we have all agreed that the rule specifically states 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
Since the definition of force cannot be applied for a ball going from the end zone into the field of play the fumble is NOT an initial force NOR is it a new force – by definition straight from the book
Since there is no new force by the fumble this play is the same as; B1 intercepts a pass in his end zone. He starts to run it out but fumbles. B2 attempts to catch the airborne fumble in the end zone where B3 falls on it. What do we have? Obviously a touchback
We are trying to use an intricate knowledge of the rules to make too much of a simple situation.
Intercepted in the end zone, fumbled and recovered in the end zone, 1st and ten on the 20 for “B”
-
Hello gentlemen
After much deliberation, I submit that the correct result in this play is that it is a touchback
Keep deliberating. I have two state directors and a member of the National rules committee that all say it's a safety.
-
I really don't see how anyone could read this entire thread and still come up with touchback.
Since the definition of force cannot be applied for a ball going from the end zone into the field of play the fumble is NOT an initial force NOR is it a new force
This sentence is not correct. Did you read Case Book 8.5.1 Situation C as suggested? It specifically says, if the ball is kicked from in the end zone and then muffed back into the end zone then the force that put the ball in the end zone was the kick. It's right there... straight from the book. So a force that originates in the end zone, and puts the ball out of the end zone, can still be responsible for putting it back into the end zone.
-
AB had it right in the first reply of the thread. Maybe breaking the down into its plays will make it clear:
Play 1) Loose ball play during which ball crosses goal line (A passes)
Play 2) Running play during which ball crosses goal line again (B intercepts, runs, and fumbles)
Play 3) Running play of zero length (B falls on ball)
No matter how convoluted play 2 is, under zero circumstances can the force in play 1 be the same as the force in play 2, they are separate plays. One force cannot be part of multiple plays. Force goes in one direction, but the location of the player that exerted the energy is irrelevant.
Clear safety.
-
AB had it right in the first reply of the thread. Maybe breaking the down into its plays will make it clear:
Play 1) Loose ball play during which ball crosses goal line (A passes)
Play 2) Running play during which ball crosses goal line again (B intercepts, runs, and fumbles)
Play 3) Running play of zero length (B falls on ball)
No matter how convoluted play 2 is, under zero circumstances can the force in play 1 be the same as the force in play 2, they are separate plays. One force cannot be part of multiple plays. Force goes in one direction, but the location of the player that exerted the energy is irrelevant.
Clear safety.
DAMN GUYS!!!!! That's what I said on the 4th post in this thread............... hEaDbAnG
-
OK, I know I'm late to this thread, and being very simplistic, but...
There are only 2 forces in this entire play:
(1) A's pass.
(2) B's fumble.
Force (1) obviously ended when B intercepted. Therefore, we're left with Force (2).
Would anyone here have a problem with a ruling of Safety if B had run the ball to the B-3, fumbled there, and the ball bounced into the EZ recovered by B?
-
I must admit that my first thoughts on this play was Touchback.
Then I read the post that suggested reading Case Book 8.5.1 C ... A scrimmage kick by K1 from his own end zone is muffed in flight beyond the neutral zone by R1 and rebounds into the end zone where it is recovered by K2. The ball becomes dead in the end zone when K2 is tackled there. RULING: This is a safety because the force which put the ball into the end zone was still the kick by K1. R will be awarded 2 points and K will free kick from K’s 20-yard line. (8-5-2b)
8.5.1 C References 8-5-2 . . . It is a safety when:
b. A player who is either in the field of play or in his end zone, forces a loose ball from the field of play to or across his goal line by his kick, pass, fumble, snap or by a new force to a grounded loose ball with his muff or bat or illegal kick (when the penalty is declined), provided the ball becomes dead there in his team’s possession (including when the ball is declared dead with no player in possession), or the ball is out of bounds when it becomes dead on or behind their goal line. This does not apply to a legal forward pass which becomes incomplete.
The Rule & Case Play both clearly state it is possible for a player in his on end zone to be responsible for forcing the ball from the field of play "to or across his goal line."
-
I accomplished what I set out to do. There has been a lot of discussion about force that a lot of officials never look at. Hopefully this never happens to me but if it does I will deem it a touch back. That is until someone from the NFHS rules committee tells me differently. Using the kick out of the end zone as a justification for a safety just doesn't do it for me. If K attempts a kick out of the end zone and is tackled there it is a safety. If someone intercepts a pass and is downed in the end zone it is a touch back. Just because a fumble leaves the end zone doesn't mean that there is a new force. Force is only a factor on a grounded fumble, kick or backward pass.
Atlanta Blue. I would really like to talk to the NFHS rules guy that you know.
-
Using the kick out of the end zone as a justification for a safety just doesn't do it for me. If K attempts a kick out of the end zone and is tackled there it is a safety.
Doesn't do it for you? I don't think you understand the point. The question was: can the force that puts the ball in the EZ originate in EZ? The answer is yes.
The case play had nothing to do with being tackled in the EZ. If K kicks the ball out of the EZ, R (in the field of play) muffs it back into the EZ, no new force has been added. The only possible force is the kick, which originated in the EZ. That answers the original question.
This play is a safety, because K provided the force that put the ball in the EZ. When B fumbles the ball out of the EZ and the fumble is the force that subsequently puts the ball in the EZ, it's a safety too.
If you don't follow this reasoning, I don't see why some authoritative personage declaring it so would do it for you.
-
Keep on, with the force don't stop
Don't stop til you get enough
Keep on, with the force don't stop
Don't stop til you get enough
5 Internet points to whoever can identify the above nAnA
-
Michael Jackson is worth 5 points?
-
OK OK................10