From CFO Test: Touchdown, Touchback, Ball in the 1 yard line?

[mardjam]

Hi everyone,

I represent a crew of official from Uruguay, a little country in South America, we are developing an officiating clinic to teach our guys in order to improve their knowledge and skills. The forum has been really helpful for us during the process, so thanks for the contribution.

Preparing the final test to certificate our officials, I found a strange situation in a CFO Test:

8. Ball carrier A33 breaks away and is racing toward the Team B goal line. He drops the ball just inside the one-yard line and, thinking he has scored a touchdown, circles through the end zone and runs to his team area. No official signals a touchdown nor blows a whistle. The ball rolls into the end zone where it then comes to rest and is declared dead with no player making an attempt to recover it.

a. Touchback. Team B’s ball at the B-25.
b. Touchdown for Team A.
c. Touchback. Team B’s ball at the B-20.
d. Team A’s ball at the spot of the fumble.

REFERENCES: 7-2-5, 8-2-1-c, AR 8-2-1-X
COMMENTS: Because the fumble comes to rest it belongs to the fumbling team at that spot. This satisfies one definition of a touchdown—an awarded fumble. It is important to note that no official makes any signal to kill the ball, until it clearly rolls dead in the end zone.

The explanation there is clear, however I'd appreciate hearing your thoughts on why this situation is not a touchback for the Team B, or the ball in the 1 yard line for  the Team A.

Thanks in advance

[ElvisLives]

First, really cool to hear from folks in other parts of the world, that I might not have thought knew much about American football, much less play and/or officiate.  Great!

I don't know that anybody can offer a great explanation for this ruling, but it is definitely the correct ruling.  I'd like to explain that this isn't a touchback, because the ball isn't awarded to the defending team.  The attacking team is still in possession, and the ball is still inbounds.  So, it isn't a touchback.  The ball only becomes dead due to "lack of interest" by the teams.  If the defending doesn't give up on the ball, then they may be able to gain possession and make a touchback out of it (or return it into the field of play).  But if they give up on it, then they really don't have any right to get a touchback out of it.  If the attacking team gives up on it, some people might argue that it isn't fair for them to get a TD out  of it.  Hard to argue against that, but the fact is the ball is still in the attacking team's possession, and is dead beyond the defending team's goal line.  The only thing this can be is a TD  for the attacking team.

Robert

[Kalle]

This is one of the few real playing rule differences between the NCAA and IFAF rules. In IFAF games all backward passes and fumbles at rest inbounds belong to the passing/fumbling team at the worst spot of the spot of the pass/fumble and the dead ball spot. Thus, in IFAF games (which may or may not be in effect in Uruguay), the correct ruling is team A's ball at just inside B-1.

[ElvisLives]

...all backward passes and fumbles at rest inbounds belong to the passing/fumbling team at the worst spot of the spot of the pass/fumble and the dead ball spot.

That would probably be a better rule for the NCAA, too.

[Kalle]

That would probably be a better rule for the NCAA, too.

Yeah, IFAF rules gurus feel that the treatment of the fumbles should be the same whether or not they become dead in the field of play or go out of bounds.
 

[dvasques]

one of the major improvements (I'd call it) that IFAF's book has over NCAA's. I was very interested in finding that out while translating the book to portuguese and there's been nothing but support for this version of this one rule here.

Sounds much more logical to treat fumbles the same in every situation like this one

[JasonTX]

If this happens in a game.  "Hey young man, can you please pick that ball up and hand it to me."    

[Kalle]

If this happens in a game.  "Hey young man, can you please pick that ball up and hand it to me."    

Are you going to catch the ball?

[#92]

Are you going to catch the ball?

Doesn't matter, since the ball is dead as soon as the young man in question picks up the ball, right?

[Kalle]

Doesn't matter, since the ball is dead as soon as the young man in question picks up the ball, right?

If it is a team A player, yes.

[mardjam]

Thank you all for the feedback, we really appreciate your help.

Martin

[NVFOA_Ump]

If it is a team A player, yes.

If it's a team B player it becomes dead when/if he hands it to the official.

[Kalle]

If it's a team B player it becomes dead when/if he hands it to the official.

Yes, so would you catch it or let it fall to the ground? Would you give team B a touchback or allow for team A to react?

[#92]

Yes, so would you catch it or let it fall to the ground? Would you give team B a touchback or allow for team A to react?

Wouldn't it be a safety if a Team B player picks it up and an official catches it? Since that Team B player is then "responsible for a loose ball being [..] behind the goal line." (Rule 8-7-1).

[Kalle]

Wouldn't it be a safety if a Team B player picks it up and an official catches it? Since that Team B player is then "responsible for a loose ball being [..] behind the goal line." (Rule 8-7-1).

If he picked it up in the field of play and threw it to an official who is in the end zone, then maybe. I assumed that the ball was at rest in the end zone.

[Legacy Zebra]

Or you can avoid the entire situation by not telling a player what to do and killing it since that's what the rule says. The rule is there, it's our job to enforce the rules, just do your job. Why would we even think about telling one team or another to recover a loose ball?

[JasonTX]

Or you can avoid the entire situation by not telling a player what to do and killing it since that's what the rule says. The rule is there, it's our job to enforce the rules, just do your job. Why would we even think about telling one team or another to recover a loose ball?

That's why I put the  .  My reply was simply for humor.