Author Topic: Muff and Force Question  (Read 306 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sczeebra

  • *
  • Posts: 87
  • FAN REACTION: +2/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Muff and Force Question
« on: June 12, 2019, 08:48:40 PM »
Redding study guide Pg. 191 question #61. A12 fumbles the ball on the A-5. B30 muffs the ball into Team A's end zone. A83 picks up the ball and is tackled by the face mask in the end zone where he fumbles. The ball goes out of bounds at the A-2. The penalty is enforced from the A-20 is a correct answer citing rule 10-4-6. I have read many scenarios of this type not only in Redding but also conceived in our association and here online. My question is: Just because the ball is fumbled how can we assume that it has been grounded and in fact, if the ball has not been grounded is there a new force by B putting the ball into A's endzone?

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 899
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-9
Re: Muff and Force Question
« Reply #1 on: June 13, 2019, 12:21:55 AM »
You are correct.  If the fumble is not grounded, there is no new force added by B.  The muffing or batting of a pass, kick, or fumble in flight is not considered a new force.  Iíve never seen this play happen, but it is part of our pregame every week.

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 3119
  • FAN REACTION: +383/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Muff and Force Question
« Reply #2 on: June 14, 2019, 09:33:02 AM »
IMHO, George D. does a good job with this publication and probably was assuming the readers would read this as grounded fumble and muff. Good pick, FLAHL & SCzeebra, on non-grounded situation. A classic example of such would be a blocked punt bouncing back through K's EZ is not a new force.