Batting/Fumble/EZ question

[dammitbobby]

4/Goal @ B-10. RB A33 fumbles the ball at the B-6. B99 intentionally bats the ball backwards from the B-4 and it rolls into the EZ where A96 jumps on the ball.

Ruling?

This is another interesting one that I missed on  quiz... I feel like we've probably discussed this one before, and as far as I can tell there is a conflict in the rules about the outcome.

[Stinterp]

4th down fumble rule, Safety,  AR 8-5-1 XI, ball dead when recovered by A96,  B's batting is legal, however new impetus is added by B. (assuming the ball was grounded).

[dammitbobby]

While that was the conclusion I came to, the quiz's correct answer was a safety.

There does appear to be conflicting rules language here (as far as I can tell):

7-2-2-a-Exception 2: On fourth down before a change of team possession, when a Team A fumble is caught or recovered by a Team A player other than the fumbler, the ball is dead. If the catch or recovery is beyond the spot of the fumble, the ball is returned to the spot of the fumble. If the catch or recovery is behind the spot of the fumble, the ball remains at the spot of the catch or recovery.

So the  4th down fumble rule (above) says that the ball is returned to spot of the fumble.

But, 8-7-2-b-1 states that initial impetus is considered expended and the responsibility for the ball’s progress is charged to a player if that player kicks a ball not in player possession or bats a loose ball
after it strikes the ground, and c) a loose ball retains its original status when there is new impetus (which in this case, means that the loose ball is still considered a fumble, but B is responsible for where it winds up.) So it's B's fault the ball is in the EZ.

So one rule says this would be a scoring play (safety, 2 points for A) while another rule says no, that isn't where the ball should be declared dead.

But what if it was 3rd down? This would be a safety. I don't see why A is denied the beneficial consequence of two points, just because it's 4th down, due to the intentional act of B. And I get that's what the 4th down fumble rule says, but it seems odd to me that B's bat essentially negates any possibility of negative consequence for them from being scored on.

[Stinterp]

AR 8-5-1 XI,  why is this not a touchdown?

[ElvisLives]

AR 8-5-1 XI,  why is this not a touchdown?

Shaw put that AR in place in 2021. I honestly believe Shaw misreads 8-5–1-a where it says “…possession of a player…”. It goes on to say, “…on, above, or beyond THEIR own goal line…” Shaw seems to think the rule means a player of either team. No. It means a player of the defending team, not the attacking team. So, you and I agree that, by rule, AR 8-5-1-XI should result in a TD. The impetus rule can certainly supersede the 4th down fumble rule. Personally, I’m OK with that. But, that would only mean that the impetus rules apply 100%, and those rules would have this be a TD.

Somebody should discuss this with Shaw.

[bossman72]

Shaw put that AR in place in 2021. I honestly believe Shaw misreads 8-5–1-a where it says “…possession of a player…”. It goes on to say, “…on, above, or beyond THEIR own goal line…” Shaw seems to think the rule means a player of either team. No. It means a player of the defending team, not the attacking team. So, you and I agree that, by rule, AR 8-5-1-XI should result in a TD. The impetus rule can certainly supersede the 4th down fumble rule. Personally, I’m OK with that. But, that would only mean that the impetus rules apply 100%, and those rules would have this be a TD.

Somebody should discuss this with Shaw.

I never got my panties in a twist about this ruling because it will never happen.  I don't agree with Shaw on this one.  The result of the play should be B 1/10 @ B6.  This is my own personal theory...  4th down fumble rule, the ball instantly is brought back to the spot of the fumble after the recovery.  The physical recovery spot is not the actual end of the play.  Therefore the impetus/safety/touchback discussion is irrelevant. Absent the 4th down fumble rule, this play is a touchdown.  Nothing to do with impetus.

[Kalle]

AR 8-5-1 XI,  why is this not a touchdown?

I believe Shaw thinks that awarding a touchdown would be too good a result for team A after they have fumbled on the fourth down.

[dammitbobby]

I believe Shaw thinks that awarding a touchdown would be too good a result for team A after they have fumbled on the fourth down.

But it would be fine on a 3rd down? That' the logic I don't understand here.

[Kalle]

But it would be fine on a 3rd down? That' the logic I don't understand here.

There is no special rule for a team A recovery on a 3rd down so I can see the logic, even though I'm in the camp of team A TD.

[ElvisLives]

I never got my panties in a twist about this ruling because it will never happen.  I don't agree with Shaw on this one.  The result of the play should be B 1/10 @ B6.  This is my own personal theory...  4th down fumble rule, the ball instantly is brought back to the spot of the fumble after the recovery.  The physical recovery spot is not the actual end of the play.  Therefore the impetus/safety/touchback discussion is irrelevant. Absent the 4th down fumble rule, this play is a touchdown. Nothing to do with impetus.

Actually, impetus is involved in EVERY touchdown, safety, and touchback. 8-7-1 doesn't make a distinction regarding the result of the ball being dead on/above/behind a goal line - only who is responsible for it being there when it becomes dead. 8-2-1 tells us the result is a touchdown, under certain conditions. 8-5-1 tells us the result is a safety, under certain conditions. 8-6-1 tells us the result is a touchback, under certain conditions. But all conditions have one team, or the other, responsible for the ball being on/above/behind the goal line (impetus).

At this point, though, I think we are all mystified as to how the result of the down is a safety - and not a touchdown - in AR 8-5-1-XI.

[ilyazhito]

I agree. If A ends up with possession of a dead ball in B's end zone, it should be a TD.

[bossman72]

Actually, impetus is involved in EVERY touchdown, safety, and touchback. 8-7-1 doesn't make a distinction regarding the result of the ball being dead on/above/behind a goal line - only who is responsible for it being there when it becomes dead. 8-2-1 tells us the result is a touchdown, under certain conditions. 8-5-1 tells us the result is a safety, under certain conditions. 8-6-1 tells us the result is a touchback, under certain conditions. But all conditions have one team, or the other, responsible for the ball being on/above/behind the goal line (impetus).

At this point, though, I think we are all mystified as to how the result of the down is a safety - and not a touchdown - in AR 8-5-1-XI.

Disagree about touchdown. Possession of a live ball in the opponents end zone is always a touchdown unless the 4th down fumble rule applies. Impetus has absolutely nothing to do with touchdown. Does not matter who put it there.

[ElvisLives]

A lot of people think of Impetus and Responsibility only with respect to safeties and touchbacks. That is a very common misunderstanding of Impetus and Responsibility. Most all of us, myself included, tend to use the words Impetus and Responsibility incorrectly. Most of the time, when talking about who put the ball into an end zone, we use Impetus, which is incorrect. The correct word for that is Responsibility. "Impetus" is just the physical action on the ball that causes it to travel in ANY direction. "Responsibility" is who imparted the impetus on the ball that caused it to be on/above/across a goal line when it is declared dead.
If you read Section 8-7, there is no reference anywhere in that section as to the result of such impetus and responsibility. You have to look at 8-2, 8-5, and 8-6 to get the result of responsibility for the ball being on/above/across a goal line when it becomes dead.
 
Touchdown
8-2 tells us that, when the attacking team has legal possession of the ball when it is declared dead on/above/across the opponent's goal line, that is a touchdown. That rule makes no reference as to which team is responsible for the ball being there, so the result is touchdown, regardless of who is responsible. But, make no mistake - one team or the other provided the Impetus, and is Responsible, for the ball being there. (Note: AR 8-5-1-XI does not seem to follow this rule, with no good, apparent, reason. That question has been posed to the 'power that be.' We'll wait to get an explanation from 'the power.')

Safety
8-5 tells us that, when the defending team is responsible for the ball being on/above/across their own goal line, in their team possession when it is declared dead, the result is safety.

Touchback
8-6 tells us that, when the attacking team is responsible for the ball being on/above/across their opponent's goal line, loose, or in the opponent's team possession when it is declared dead, the result is a touchback.

So, yes, Impetus and Responsibility apply to every incidence of a ball being dead on/above/across a goal line.

[ElvisLives]

OK, I finally understand why the ruling in AR 8-5-1-XI is - CORRECTLY - a safety. And I’m embarrassed. Somehow, despite the clarity in the setup of the play situation - the fact that this was 4th down, and the status of the ball remained a Team A fumble, completely escaped me.
The reason this is a safety is because, by the 4th down fumble rule, Team A is NOT in legal possession of the ball in Team B’s end zone. 8-5-1-a contains the phrase, “…, or becomes dead by rule,…”, and Team A’s possession of the ball in B’s end zone made the ball dead, by rule. But, since Team B was RESPONSIBLE for the ball being in their own end zone when it became dead, by rule, yep, that’s a safety.

Editing the rules to clearly cover this one specific - once-in-a-very-long-career play situation - could be done But, with this AR, that really isn’t necessary.

Had Team A been responsible for the ball being in the end zone, then the 4th down fumble rule would have applied, and the ball would have been returned to the spot of the fumble, and Team B would have been awarded the ball. A muff of the ball, instead of a bat, by Team B would have also resulted in application of the 4th down fumble rule. So, Team B just screwed up by batting the grounded fumble.
Also, had A44 - the fumbler - recovered the ball, then that would have been a legal recovery, with a touchdown as the result.

[dammitbobby]

So- just thinking out loud here - adding new impetus to a loose ball, does not break the continuity of downs, like a change in possession would. I think that might be where I was coming from, in that doing so would negate 4th down fumble rule.

Still trying to wrap my head around your phrase, not in legal possession of the ball... A does have possession, else the play wouldn't be blown dead. I never thought to think of A's recovery as not-legal possession.

Shaw put that AR in place in 2021. I honestly believe Shaw misreads 8-5–1-a where it says “…possession of a player…”. It goes on to say, “…on, above, or beyond THEIR own goal line…” Shaw seems to think the rule means a player of either team. No. It means a player of the defending team, not the attacking team. So, you and I agree that, by rule, AR 8-5-1-XI should result in a TD. The impetus rule can certainly supersede the 4th down fumble rule. Personally, I’m OK with that. But, that would only mean that the impetus rules apply 100%, and those rules would have this be a TD.

Somebody should discuss this with Shaw.

The bolded part above is what I can't square though... I also think it should override the 4th down fumble rule, but as I understand your explanation, that doesn't seem possible?

[Kalle]

The bolded part above is what I can't square though... I also think it should override the 4th down fumble rule, but as I understand your explanation, that doesn't seem possible?

It could override the 4th down fumble rule, but the A.R. says that it doesn't. The A.R. was put in place due to this conundrum - which of the two rules takes precedence in this case. In general, the A.R. could be easily be written to result in any of the three potential outcomes (B's ball @B-5 due to ball returning there because of the 4DFR; safety as the ball is dead in team B's end zone, team B is responsible for the ball being there, and A is not in legal possession of the ball; or TD as the new impetus "destroys" the 4DFR and team A is in possession of the ball in team B's EZ).

[ElvisLives]

When this happens to you - anybody - get video, and then we'll talk some more.   Until then, let's talk about something that happens every game - like exposed knees...

(Actually, no. Let's don't.)

[dammitbobby]

That makes sense, that the AR is meant to clarify which one prevails.

This may be a one-in-a-million play, but I definitely find value in the discussion around how (and why rules are structured the way they are. In my experience most officials might be be able to tell you what the end result should be, but often they can't explain the logic behind it, or how the pieces fit together. My goal is to not just to know the rules, but to understand them; I feel that makes me a better official and helps me more, to be able to see the larger picture of how all the rules fit together, rather than just focusing on the immediate end result without a clear understanding of how we got there.

[Kalle]

When this happens to you - anybody - get video, and then we'll talk some more.   Until then, let's talk about something that happens every game - like exposed knees...

Then again, nobody guessed that anybody would throw a forward pass forward while airborne It is good to be prepared, although this is probably much more unlikely to ever happen (anybody seen any team B bat of a fourth down fumble let alone one that makes it to team B EZ?).

[ElvisLives]

Then again, nobody guessed that anybody would throw a forward pass forward while airborne It is good to be prepared, although this is probably much more unlikely to ever happen (anybody seen any team B bat of a fourth down fumble let alone one that makes it to team B EZ?).

Sorry. I didn’t mean to trivialize the discussion. I just figured, since we know the ruling, and the logic for the ruling, there wasn’t much more to be discussed on this situation.
Bobby is right on track in his desire to understand as much about the rules as possible. Not just the language, and the most current interpretations, but the purpose and history of each rule.
But, in fact, I have something to stir the pot. 
This is more of a question of philosophy and equality of justice than a discussion of known interpretation. There is a saying: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So, if a safety (against Team B) is the ruling when Team A makes an illegal recovery of a loose ball in B’s end zone when B is ‘responsible’ for the ball being there, why wouldn’t the ruling be a touchback when A is ‘responsible’ for the ball being in B’s end zone (with an illegal recovery)? The 4th down fumble rule can fairly apply to an illegal recovery between the goal lines. But, if the safety rule applies to an illegal recovery by Team A when B is responsible, then the touchback rule should apply when Team A is responsible.

One man’s opinion.

[Kalle]

This is more of a question of philosophy and equality of justice than a discussion of known interpretation. There is a saying: What’s good for the goose is good for the gander. So, if a safety (against Team B) is the ruling when Team A makes an illegal recovery of a loose ball in B’s end zone when B is ‘responsible’ for the ball being there, why wouldn’t the ruling be a touchback when A is ‘responsible’ for the ball being in B’s end zone (with an illegal recovery)? The 4th down fumble rule can fairly apply to an illegal recovery between the goal lines. But, if the safety rule applies to an illegal recovery by Team A when B is responsible, then the touchback rule should apply when Team A is responsible.

This would actually be in line with other fumbles. Team A fumbles in the field of play, and the ball a) goes out of bounds at B-0.5, or b) strikes the pylon on team B goal line. We all know that in a) the ball belongs to team A with whatever down and distance (either spot of the fumble or OOB spot), but in b) it is a touchback. Why treat a fourth down fumble differently?

[ElvisLives]

This would actually be in line with other fumbles. Team A fumbles in the field of play, and the ball a) goes out of bounds at B-0.5, or b) strikes the pylon on team B goal line. We all know that in a) the ball belongs to team A with whatever down and distance (either spot of the fumble or OOB spot), but in b) it is a touchback. Why treat a fourth down fumble differently?

Exactly. Vote for me and I’ll fix this! 

(Why am I up at 4:18 am?)