Question for newbies

[mbyron]

Old hands lay off this one, which a friend sent to me this morning.

K punting from the K5, 4th and 10. The kick crosses the neutral zone, hits R38 in the helmet, and bounces back into K's end zone. K2 recovers the ball there and runs it out to the K10.

What's your call? Safety? Touchback? Legal play? If so, whose ball now?

Please cite rules with your answer.

[Atlanta Blue]

That's a hell of a bounce!

K's ball, 1st and 10 on their own 10.

But why didn't K just fall on it in the EZ?  They would have gotten 10 more yards.

[mark in ok]

This is a muff by R.  K cannot advance it, after gaining possession.  So, a touchback.  Ball on the 20. 

[Atlanta Blue]

This is a muff by R.  K cannot advance it, after gaining possession.  So, a touchback.  Ball on the 20.

Sure they can, they recovered it behind the NZ.  K retains all rights they had before they kicked it the first time, including the right to run, pass or kick it again.

Since R touched it beyond the NZ, they are going to get a new series, unless they kick it again.

[RickKY]

Illegal participation on AB.  Old hands were told to lay off this one.   

[Atlanta Blue]

Illegal participation on AB.  Old hands were told to lay off this one.   

But I'm even newer than a newbie official, I'm not an official at all!

[Ump33]

... But why didn't K just fall on it in the EZ?  They would have gotten 10 more yards.

Is K not responsible for the ball (kick) going into their own endzone?

[Bob M.]

Is K not responsible for the ball (kick) going into their own endzone?

REPLY: Regarding Atlanta Blue's comment about K just falling on the ball in the end zone, Ump33 is correct. The force that put the ball into K's endzone was the kick (since you can't add force to a kick in flight). So it is not a touchback if K falls on it there. What is it then? Although it first appears that we might have two rules in conflict, this would result in a safety. In fact there's a similar case play:

8.5.1 SITUATION 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)

[TampaSteve]

REPLY: Regarding Atlanta Blue's comment about K just falling on the ball in the end zone, Ump33 is correct. The force that put the ball into K's endzone was the kick (since you can't add force to a kick in flight). So it is not a touchback if K falls on it there. What is it then? Although it first appears that we might have two rules in conflict, this would result in a safety. In fact there's a similar case play:

8.5.1 SITUATION 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)

Is hitting a helmet a "muff" - def: an attempt to secure possession?
Neverethless, the kick never ended.

[mbyron]

Is hitting a helmet a "muff" - def: an attempt to secure possession?
Neverethless, the kick never ended.

1. Technically not a muff (good point), but the rule states that (barring penalties) the team in possession at the end of a down will start a new series when a scrimmage kick has been touched by R beyond the NZ. (5-1-3f)

2. The kick in this case ended when K recovered it in their own end zone. One way to end a kick is to possess the ball before it has become dead.

[stevegarbs]

1. Technically not a muff (good point), but the rule states that (barring penalties) the team in possession at the end of a down will start a new series when a scrimmage kick has been touched by R beyond the NZ. (5-1-3f)

Sure it is- R is standing there waiting to catch the kick- to secure possession of the ball- just because it hits his helmet instead of his hands does not make this something other than a muff.

[mbyron]

Sure it is- R is standing there waiting to catch the kick- to secure possession of the ball- just because it hits his helmet instead of his hands does not make this something other than a muff.

You don't know he was waiting to catch the kick. He might have been a lineman or linebacker, facing the other way, and the kick came down and hit his helmet.

[RickKY]

Since the kick was touched by R beyond the ENZ and K recovered the kick behind the ENZ, K amy advance the ball.  As long as they advance it out of the EZ into the field of play K will be awarded a new series.  If the ball becomes dead in K's EZ with K in possession it will be a safety.

K may advance this recovered kick by run, pass, or another kick.

We had this play happen to a crew from our association last season.  Though the end zone was not involved, and they got the ruling incorrect, we have had this one drilled into us since.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The question of whether a kick hitting a player on the helmet or not is a muff is answered simply by another question: Was he trying to gain possession of the loose ball? If so, it's a muff. If not, and it just hit him, it's not a muff.

But for the purpose of the play, it doesn't matter whether you call it a muff or not. The definition of force in Rule 2 says that the force is the kick unless a new force is applied to a kick THAT HAS BEEN GROUNDED. So since the kick hit (or was muffed by) R in flight, the force that puts the ball into K's endzone is the kick, and Team K is responsible for it being there.