Let's keep it simple, Re: AU/Ole Miss kick off

[LT]

A free kick is touched by Team B and continues into the EZ (not out of bounds).

The touching didn't cause the ball to enter the EZ...the kick did.

Live ball for anyone to recover?

Touchback?

(everything else is moot until we answer this)

[ump_ben]

Until it's inadvertently signaled dead, it's a live ball for anyone to recover.  Touchback if recovered by R, Touchdown if recovered by K, serious talking to if recovered by the White Hat.

[LT]

That's my gut reaction, but I've been talked out of it by the impetus exception.

[dammitbobby]

Live ball. 

Since B touched it, but did not possess it, it is a muff:  2-11-2
ARTICLE 2. To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it. Muffing the ball does not change its status.

Once B touches it, the clock should start (on an official's signal): (3-3-2-a)
Starting and Stopping the Clock
ARTICLE 2. a. Free Kick. After the ball is free-kicked, the game clock shall be started on an official’s signal when the ball is legally touched in the field of play, or when it crosses the goal line after being touched legally by Team B in its end zone. It is subsequently stopped on an official’s signal when the ball is dead by rule. (A. R. 3-3-2-VII)

At that point, unless the ball goes out of bounds, or no one tries to possess it, the ball is live.

[Kalle]

That's my gut reaction, but I've been talked out of it by the impetus exception.

What impetus exception? Impetus applies only to intentional acts, if the ball is not at rest. (Emphasis on the rules quote is mine)

"Initial impetus is considered expended and the responsibility for the ball’s progress is charged to a player if he kicks a ball not in player possession or bats a loose ball after it strikes the ground."

[LT]

Ah, I should not have used "exception" there...but instead just asked was the touching ignored by the impetus  of the kick when it made it to the EZ.

I initially didn't believe this to be the case, but allowed other officials to sway me.

Problem is, there isn't a specific case to this very play....which I find hard to believe.

Unless I just can't find it....

[ElvisLives]

That's my gut reaction, but I've been talked out of it by the impetus exception.

Impetus is not an "exception." Impetus is the action on a ball that causes it be behind a goal line where it becomes dead. That could be by a player carrying it across a goal line, fumbling it, passing it backward, kicking it (legally or illegally), or batting a loose ball (legally or illegally) that has touched the ground, where it travels from the field of play into an end zone, then becomes dead behind a goal line. Simple touching of the loose ball (deliberately or incidentally, and not batting or kicking) does not change impetus.

In the Auburn/Ole Miss example, impetus was from the kick. If the kick was touched by the receiving team before it touched the ground in the end zone, then yes, the ball would remain alive and in play, and either team could recover the ball. If the receiving team were to recover it, and the ball had become dead there in the end zone, touchback. If the kicking team were to recover it, the ball is dead wherever that is and belongs to the kicking team; if in the receiving team's end zone, touchdown.
If the ball was NOT touched by the receiving team (as it was ruled), then it became a touchback the instant it touched the ground in the end zone.

If you need an example of how impetus could yield other results, let's say that a receiving team player wants to keep the kicking team from recovering the bounding kicked ball, so he swats it from the receiving team's 5 yard line, and it travels directly into the end zone where it is recovered by a receiving team player, and the ball becomes dead there (or goes out of bounds). The impetus is from the batting, so, the result of the down is a Safety - 2 points for the kicking team. If the kicking team were to recover it in the end zone, touchdown for the kicking team.

[Kalle]

Problem is, there isn't a specific case to this very play....which I find hard to believe.

Unless I just can't find it....

Look at A.R. 8-7-2-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)."

[LT]

Look at A.R. 8-7-2-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)."

Yeah I corrected my verbiage in the post before yours....and I know about the new impetus from batting, swatting etc.

[ump_ben]

Ah, I should not have used "exception" there...but instead just asked was the touching ignored by the impetus  of the kick when it made it to the EZ.

I initially didn't believe this to be the case, but allowed other officials to sway me.

Problem is, there isn't a specific case to this very play....which I find hard to believe.

Unless I just can't find it....

You're thinking of this backwards.  You don't need an exception to make this a live ball, you need one (or more accurately a rule) to make it a dead ball.  Normally on a kick, the ball is live until recovered or at rest with no one interested in recovering it.  But there's a special exception that a kick which is untouched by R and then grounded in the endzone is immediately a touchback.

[ElvisLives]

....and I know about the new impetus from batting, swatting etc.

There are no such things as ‘original’ or ‘new’ impetus. There is only the one impetus - the one action on the ball that caused it to be in the end zone when it was declared dead. Impetus can’t be changed. Impetus does not exist if the ball does not become dead behind a goal line.

[sj_31]

"There are no such things as ‘original’ or ‘new’ impetus. There is only the one impetus - the one action on the ball that caused it to be in the end zone when it was declared dead. Impetus can’t be changed. Impetus does not exist if the ball does not become dead behind a goal line."

Well, kind of, but not really... There is such thing as "initial impetus" and it can be expended and new impetus given to the ball when a couple of specific things occur. 8-7-2-b, c.

[ElvisLives]

Unfortunate, but poor language, or at least poor language coordination.
8-7-1 states that impetus is the action that forces the ball on, above, or behind a goal line. Impetus is irrelevant if the ball doesn’t become dead on, above, or behind a goal line. Therefore, only the action that puts the ball on, above or behind the goal line, where it becomes dead, is the impetus that caused it to be there. Impetus can’t be assigned until the ball becomes dead on/above/behind the goal line.

If a free kicked ball gets batted at the B-5, And the ball travels into B’s end zone, where it becomes dead, it ain’t the kick that put it there - it is the batting action. The batting is THE impetus that caused the ball to be there.

If B intercepts the ball in B’s end zone, then B fumbles, and the ball travels into the field of play, where it deflects off of another player and travels back across B’s goal line, and rolls out of bounds, it wasn’t A’s pass that caused it to become dead behind B’s goal line - it was B’s fumble, which was THE impetus.

There is only one impetus, and that is the action that puts the ball on/above/behind the goal line, where it then becomes dead. By its own definition, impetus can’t be changed. If an action on the ball is not the one that forced the ball on/above/beyond a goal line (where it then becomes dead) by definition, it can’t be impetus.

[yarnnelg]

I've watched every camera angle and there is nothing that stands out. Other than the announcers constant barking about the play, claiming the ball was touched. Then realize...no one with stripes can watch this at game speed and you cannot watch in slow motion and find anything that follows one simple rule of Officiating. "If you don't see it from start to finish....it's nothing"

Until someone comes up with a zoom in view, freeze framed at the moment the ball goes between his hands, and visual evidence of touch or no touch, we are restricted to what can actually be seen. Which unfortunately in this case is non conclusive...

The SEC response is neutral except wondering why it wasn't reviewed. When in actuality, the play was run back immediately and with the delay to set the field after the kick, most likely viewed at least a second time.