Momentum exception

[#92]

5. PLAY: 3rd/9 B29. The score is A27-B27. B44 intercepts A16's pass on B's 4 and his momentum carries him into B's end zone where he fumbles. The ball is muffed by A65 on B's 1 and rolls out of bounds in B's end zone. Time expires in the fourth quarter during the down.

5. RULING: Safety. Team A scores two points. The final score is A29-B27. The momentum exception ended when the fumbled ball entered the field of play and did not go out of bounds between the goal lines. Impetus is charged to the team that is responsible for the ball going from the field of play into B's end zone. B44 provided new impetus when his fumble went from the field of play into B's end zone (8-5-1-a). A muff does not add new impetus unless the ball is at rest. The fact that the spot of the fumble is in B's end zone is not relevant. The new impetus supersedes the momentum exception.

I don't understand why this would not be a momentum exception? If a forward fumble going out of bounds between the goal lines is ruled as "the ball staying behind the goal line", how is this different? Rom's explanation doesn't clarify this (for me).

[Hawkeye]

The ball didn't stay behind the goal line, it was muffed at the B-1.  Thus the impetus is charged to B's fumble.

[Kalle]

To expand Hawkeye's answer a bit, ME only applies if the ball never comes out of the end zone and becomes dead there. This isn't really clear from the rules and there is no A.R., unfortunately, but I think there is a bulletin play situation from NCAA at some point.

[dvasques]

About the rulling, I only have an issue with the last sentence
"The fact that the spot of the fumble is in B's end zone is not relevant. The new impetus supersedes the momentum exception."

Why is it not relevant? It's only safety because the ball went OB after a fumble from inside the end zone. A forward fumble takes the ball back to the spot of the fumble. That's why it's a safety after ME expires, right?
So it is relevant that the spor of the fumble is in B's end zone.

What am I missing?

[Kalle]

It's not relevant in the very sense that confused #92. In determining if it is a safety you first figure out who was responsible for the ball last being in the end zone. It does not matter where the responsible action actually happened - in here the ball is fumbled from the end zone into the field of play and back into the end zone, so the naive reading would be "well, it started from the end zone so it doesn't matter that it came out for a bit, now does it?" - which is wrong, it does not matter.

[ElvisLives]

Before I give a monstrously long response, let me set up my response by asking this simple question:

B30 catches a punt in his end zone, then fumbles the ball, and the ball (otherwise untouched) goes out of bounds at the sideline of the end zone?
Ruling:

[Rulesman]

Safety

[Legacy Zebra]

Not so fast rulesman. Elvis' situation is only a safety if the ball leaves the end zone and then comes back in. If he fumbles from his end zone and the ball never leaves it is a touchback because Team A's punt put it in the end zone.

[dvasques]

good one
my mind is set on touchback

because the ball is in the end zone by impetus of A and the forward fumble takes the ball back to the spot of the fumble

[ElvisLives]

Not so fast rulesman. Elvis' situation is only a safety if the ball leaves the end zone and then comes back in. If he fumbles from his end zone and the ball never leaves it is a touchback because Team A's punt put it in the end zone.

Now we're rolling.
Legacy, support your touchback ruling, by rule.

[ElvisLives]

The critical rule statement is (2017) 8-7-1:

“The team responsible for the ball being on, above, or behind a goal line is the team whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it which forces it on, above, or across the goal line, or is responsible for a loose ball being on, above, or behind the goal line.”

1972 (8-5-2)
“The team responsible for the ball being on, above, or behind a goal line is the team whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it which forces it on, above, or across that goal line; or is held responsible for a free ball being on, above, or behind the goal line.”

(A free ball was something specific back then, which was changed in ’75 to more like what we have now, i.e., a loose ball.)

The wording has changed very slightly, and the organization of the rules has changed over time, but the fundamental rule really hasn’t changed in at least 45 years.

So, (2017) 8-5-1-a tells us that it is a safety if the defending team is responsible for the ball being dead behind the goal line.  There is not – and has never been – a RULE exception for a defending team player that gains possession of the ball in his end zone and then fumbles it out bounds behind his goal line.  By fumbling the ball, 8-7-1 tells us that the defending team player has changed the impetus on the ball, and he is now responsible for it becoming dead behind his goal line.
By strict reading of the RULE, that should be a safety.  And, today, there is nothing in the rules or interpretations that says otherwise.

Until 2011, there was.

In 1972, it was AR 42.  In 2010, that same AR was AR 8-7-2-III, and it very clearly told us it was a touchback (despite how 8-5-1 read):
“A Team-B player catches a kick in his end zone, then fumbles, and, in attempting to recover the ball, muffs (2010) [forces (1972)] it out of bounds behind his own goal line.  Ruling:  Touchback (Rule 8-6-1-a)”

By conversations and communications with them, I am very certain that the rules editors prior to Redding  (Nelson and Adams) considered impetus as something that forced the ball from the field of play into the end zone.  The rule edits and ARs they put in place were consistent with that philosophy.

Redding obviously had/has a different philosophy, and, very curiously, in 2011, AR 8-7-2-III disappeared. Without that AR, the reading of 8-5-1 and 8-7-1 would make that scenario a safety.

Of course, this doesn’t directly address anything to do with momentum.  If you were to follow the philosophy that impetus is what forces the ball from the field of play into the end zone, the rulings are easy.  The fact of a fumble from the end zone that just happens to cross from the end zone into the field of play (with no batting, kicking, etc.) changes nothing about impetus.  Redding obviously believes otherwise.  He apparently believes that every time the ball crosses over the goal line, the last player to possess the ball is responsible, even if the opponent put the ball into the end zone first.

But that’s where we are.

[Legacy Zebra]

He believe she that because that's what the rule says. 8-7-2-a:

"The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball’s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team"

So if Team B fumbles the ball, they are then responsible for where it goes. They are responsible for it until there is a new impetus. As long as the ball is bouncing around, they are responsible for it going into their own end zone.

[#92]

Very interesting point... Never thought of it like that! Interested to see others' input.

I actually think this merits a different discussion thread?

[#92]

Because it's not really what I was addressing. I was curious how Rom's scenario differs from the scenario described in Rule 8-5-1-a-(c):

the ball remains behind his goal line and is declared dead in his team's possession there. This includes a fumble that goes from the end zone into the field of play and out of bounds (Rule 7-2-4-b-1).

To recapitulate, here's Rom's scenario:

5. PLAY: 3rd/9 B29. The score is A27-B27. B44 intercepts A16's pass on B's 4 and his momentum carries him into B's end zone where he fumbles. The ball is muffed by A65 on B's 1 and rolls out of bounds in B's end zone. Time expires in the fourth quarter during the down.

Since a muff doesn't add impetus or change the status of the ball, the result of the play would be the same if:
* like in Rule 8-5-1-a-(c) the ball goes out of bounds in the field of play without being muffed
* like in Rom's scenario the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone after being muffed

In both scenarios the ball physically left the end zone, but by rule will be placed back on the spot of the fumble. What's the difference?

[Kalle]

In both scenarios the ball physically left the end zone, but by rule will be placed back on the spot of the fumble. What's the difference?

In Rom's scenario the live ball actually returns into the end zone. In 8-5-1-a-(c) the ball goes out of bounds in the field of play and is returned to the spot of the fumble by rule as if the fumble never happened. Thus this is considered the same as if the ball never came out of the end zone.

As to question by Elvis, there is no need to say anything but "touchback, A.R. 8-7-2-III and rule 8-6-1-a." If that's good for the rules committee, it is good enough an argument for us

[Kalle]

As to the original problem is is addressed in this play situation bulletin. http://www.sccfoa.org/docs/2011/2011%20NCAA%20Play%20Interpretations%20Bulletin%204%20(111411).pdf

[ElvisLives]

So if Team B fumbles the ball, they are then responsible for where it goes. They are responsible for it until there is a new impetus. As long as the ball is bouncing around, they are responsible for it going into their own end zone.

So, in the scenario I offered (B catches A's kick in B's end zone, fumbles ball directly OB behind GL), you would have a ruling of a safety.  After all, the impetus in now with B's fumble, and it is dead behind B's goal line.  That is the definition of a safety, by 8-5 and 8-7, and by the Play Situations Bulletin Redding issued in 2001, and with his banishment of AR 8-7-2-III, which was the ONLY thing that said otherwise.

Like I said, if you believe impetus is what put the ball FROM THE FIELD OF PLAY into an end zone, then touchback would (and SHOULD) be the ruling.  Unfortunately, the rules have never been written that way, although that was how Nelson and Adams interpreted them.  When Redding got rid of AR 8-7-2-III and issued the 2011 bulletin, things are now very...different, to say the least.

Quoting Rom, "Impetus is charged to the team that is responsible for the ball going from the field of play into B's end zone."  But there is NO rule or AR support for that statement, as much as I wish there were.

Here is the 2011 Play Situation:
---
Fumble in End Zone Following Interception
2. Third and five at the B-20. Defensive back B44 intercepts a forward pass at the B-3 and his momentum carries him into his end zone. While still in the end zone he fumbles the ball. It rolls forward, goes into the field of play, and in the scramble the ball goes back into the end zone (a) where B44 recovers. He is tackled in the end zone; (b) and over the end line.
RULING: Safety, two points for Team A, in both (a) and (b). The impetus for the ball The scramble to recover the ball does not add new impetus. The momentum rule does not apply because the ball did not remain in the end zone. (8-5-1, 8-7)
---

So, if you make the case that, because the ball went from the end zone into the field of play from B's fumble, and then crossed back into the end zone before going OB, that should be a safety, then you can't say that impetus is what puts the ball from the field of play into the end zone.  By that, impetus applies regardless of where inbounds it occurs.  So, when B gains possession in the end zone, then fumbles the ball directly OB in the end zone, that should be a safety.  For over 45 years, that was not the case, and I don't think it is the case, currently.  But, there is no book support for a touchback.

If you subscribe to the concept of impetus being the force that puts the ball from the field of play into an end zone, and that specific impetus remains with the ball until changed by some other impetus, regardless whether or not the ball happens to bounce/roll back and forth across the goal line (something which I know for a fact that Adams said made no difference) then the ruling in Rom's play situation would be to apply the momentum rule (not a safety).  There.  I finally got to how this whole discussion might apply to momentum.  But, Redding says safety.  OK, if that's the case, what about my scenario?  Safety?  Gosh, I hope not.  Not when it was a TB for over 45 years.

[Kalle]

Hmm, in the 2017 book the A.R. 8-7-2-III is the one where the fumble stays behind the goal line and is fumbled out of bounds with the result being a touchback. I personally think that A.R. 8-7-2-III and PSB 2011/2 are internally consistent in that the determining fact is the impetus which resulted in the ball last crossing the goal line. It does not matter where that impetus originated.

It would be nice to have these stated in the actual rules, because as your analysis points out, there isn't any rules support for these two play rulings.

[ElvisLives]

Kalle,

Wow.  I wonder if we are seeing the same thing.  This is AR 8-7-2-III from the "NCAA Football 2016 and 2017 Rules and Interpretations":

III. Team A punts. The ball is touched by Team B (no impetus added)
and crosses Team B’s goal line. Then Team B falls on the ball or the
ball goes out of bounds from the end zone. RULING: Touchback.
The same ruling applies if a kick in flight strikes Team B or merely is
deflected by an attempted catch. Team B may recover and advance,
and it is a touchback if a Team B player is downed in the end zone
or goes out of bounds behind the goal line (Rule 8-6-1-a).

There is no fumble or any other change of impetus.  This ruling is easy, and fully supported by  the rules. 

But, the previous AR 8-7-2-III (pre-2011, quoted way above) was very different, and not truly supported by the rule language.  Without this AR, as it was written then, you would have to rule safety, as the RULES are written.  Maybe this hasn't happened since the original AR was dropped by Redding.  Maybe it has, but the officials knew better than to rule safety.  I can't say.  All I know is that Nelson and Adams (and, by extension, the Rules Committee) wanted this to be a touchback prior to 2011, even though the rule language would have you believe it to be a safety.  With the previous AR, nobody worried about it, because we had something on which to "hang our hat."  But, with the disappearance of the 'real' AR 8-7-2-III, how do we support touchback? 
And without the the 'real' AR 8-7-2-III, that is how Rom gets a ruling of safety in his play situation, rather than applying the momentum exception.

[Kalle]

Kalle,

Wow.  I wonder if we are seeing the same thing.  This is AR 8-7-2-III from the "NCAA Football 2016 and 2017 Rules and Interpretations":

Hrmph, I had the 2008 book open instead of the FR17 (see the earlier discussion). I do agree that without the old A.R. rule 8-5-1-a requires more reading into than it did before. I still think that "responsible for the ball being there" relates to the ball crossing the goal line, not the ball going out of bounds, but there is really no one "obvious" answer, as one could easily argue that if you lose possession in the end zone you should be penalized if the ball goes out of bounds.

Any idea why the old A.R. was removed?

[ElvisLives]

Any idea why the old A.R. was removed?

No clue.  That is the great mystery.  But, speaking solely for myself - right or wrong - in the scenario I offered, I am going to rule touchback.  Since the old AR was there for so, so long, and there was no narrative issued by RR regarding its removal, that does not tell me that it no longer applies.  There is no AR or Play Situation (bulletin) that directly addresses that scenario.  Until we get something that directly says otherwise, that play is still just a touchback.

If, however, the fumbled ball (from the end zone by the defending team) manages to bounce/roll back into the field of play, then returns into the end zone where it becomes dead in the defending team's possession, I will bite my tongue and rule safety - including the 'momentum' scenario.  That is, apparently, how RR wants it to be (even though Adams previously interpreted otherwise).

I will now let this horse rest in peace.

[#92]

Is ther a way to consult the oracle? I mean, those CFO bulletins have to have their origin somewhere?

[Kalle]

Is ther a way to consult the oracle? I mean, those CFO bulletins have to have their origin somewhere?

redding.cfo@hotmail.com usually answers promptly.

[#92]

What a disappointingly amateur like e-mail address

[Kalle]

Yeah, no idea why it isn't @ncaa.org or even @cfo.arbitersports.com.