Unusual Play

[dcs07]

This play was in an FCS game tonight and presents an intersection of a couple of rules. I think the crew gets it right but I'll leave you in suspense for a little bit before we see if things wind up where the crew wound up. I'll link the video later too.

4/1, B-13, 9:32 (1st Quarter), A=0, B=0.
A14 hands off to A6 who advances to the B-2, where B8 knocks the ball loose for a fumble. The ball is recovered on the ground in the endzone by A4.

[Kalle]

A 1/G B-2, 40, snap?

[ElvisLives]

Curious to hear the ruling on the field. Why would it be anything other than what Kalle offered?

[dcs07]

Video at 13:31 here: https://www.espn.com/watch/player/_/id/7530a8bf-116c-4b6c-8aba-7f70102e3a95

Well, they chose the option of touchback. The closest AR I found was 8-5-1-XI. Its about a safety, impetus, and the 4th down fumble rule. It does seem to say a 4th down fumble beyond the goal line would "belong" to Team B.

[ElvisLives]

Video at 13:31 here: https://www.espn.com/watch/player/_/id/7530a8bf-116c-4b6c-8aba-7f70102e3a95

Well, they chose the option of touchback. The closest AR I found was 8-5-1-XI. Its about a safety, impetus, and the 4th down fumble rule. It does seem to say a 4th down fumble beyond the goal line would "belong" to Team B.

In AR 8-5-1-XI, the impetus is from Team B's legal batting. They are responsible for the ball being dead behind their own goal line (even though it was recovered by Team A).
The problem here is that the impetus is from A6's fumble, not from B8's action that caused the fumble. That being the case, the natural result of the down is a touchdown; but the 4th down fumble rule then applies, taking the ball to the spot of the fumble, with Team A retaining the ball. Touchback really isn't an option.

(And, the video link appears to be some kind of subscription service.)

[dcs07]

Yes it’s ESPN+. Someone more techy than me may can rip the clip. Honestly to watch college football in 2026 it’s pretty much impossible without ESPN or illegal streams.

In the AR it would also be the case that “the natural result of the down is a touchdown; but the 4th down fumble rule then applies, taking the ball to the spot of the fumble.” So how does the AR get to a safety? (I know it’s the approved ruling so if it says safety it’s a safety, but we’d like these things to match the rules right?)

[Kalle]

Well, they chose the option of touchback. The closest AR I found was 8-5-1-XI. Its about a safety, impetus, and the 4th down fumble rule. It does seem to say a 4th down fumble beyond the goal line would "belong" to Team B.

To me 8-5-1-XI pretty well explains this. As the impetus is NOT by team B, rule 7-2-2-a-Ex2 governs, and the ball belongs to team A at B-2. You don't need to think any further.

The complete 8-5-1-XI resolves the problem of what should happen when 7-2-2-a-Ex2 and impetus by team B conflict. There are valid arguments for team A's ball at B-5, TD and safety, and the A.R. tells us that it is a safety. Your play situation is different in that there is no impetus by team B.

[sj]

What game was it?

[dcs07]

East Texas A&M at Houston Christian. Link to ESPN+ broadcast is in reply 3.

I suppose I’m always inclined to try and make the officials right. Don’t really want to see 8 officials and a replay official get a rule just wrong. Particularly when it’s such a huge swing from TD to 1/G at the 2 to the other teams ball.

As a thought exercise if you change the goal line in the AR to the line to gain then you’d return to the spot of the fumble. I suppose the goal line changes everything is a good reminder in these cases.

[dammitbobby]

East Texas A&M at Houston Christian. Link to ESPN+ broadcast is in reply 3.

I suppose I’m always inclined to try and make the officials right. Don’t really want to see 8 officials and a replay official get a rule just wrong. Particularly when it’s such a huge swing from TD to 1/G at the 2 to the other teams ball.

As a thought exercise if you change the goal line in the AR to the line to gain then you’d return to the spot of the fumble. I suppose the goal line changes everything is a good reminder in these cases.

From the replay perspective, the booth doesn't make decisions or rulings outside of plays they can get involved in. While they can review the fumble (whether he was down, spot, etc.) and the recovery (in EZ or not, and who possessed it), they can "provide information" to the crew via O2O, but the ultimate decision of which rule applies and the end result rests with the whitehat and the other onfield officials.

I would hope that the booth personnel were aware of the correct ruling and what the outcome should have been, and gave the crew their opinion, but were just overruled by the whitehat.

[dcs07]

I know replay can’t overrule the interpretation but these things are crew calls right? Certainly don’t know which if any of the 9 felt differently. The whole thing from 4th down for East Texas to 1st down for HCU took less than 2 minutes. So if they felt differently they weren't listened to much.

[Ted T]

There seems to be a lot of support from those in and around the game to get rid of the fumble into the end zone and OOB to something other than a touchback.  To turn this play into a touchback makes that rule seem totally reasonable.  Not every rules seems to dictate common sense, but I would think some sensible application might've helped here.

[Kalle]

Unfortunately I don't really see any way to make the crew's TB ruling the right one, assuming basic facts that this was a fourth down, there was a team A fumble in the field of play, and team A recovered in the EZ. Only if the recovery was by team B would TB be a possibility here.

We all make mistakes.

[sj]

Looking at the box score, it looks like this happened in the middle of the 1st quarter. When it comes to handling the clocks, would everyone agree with this?

Since this one happened before either of the two-minute timeouts....

Ideally, the entire crew, and the game clock operator, all recognize that what happened was a fumble (on fourth down) and no touchdown signal would be given. So the game clock would continue to run when the ball is dead.

The play clock would be set to 40 and start. And it would be set to 40 regardless of any confusion because it goes to 40 both because the play is dead or even if the play clock operator thinks it's a touchdown.

Thinking they've scored, Team A players will probably be celebrating some. Officials will be getting the ball to set it back to the B2. If the play clock is below 25 when the ball is spotted it would be pumped back to 25.

But if it's after the two-minute timeout in either half, the only difference would be that the game clock should be stopped when the ball is dead due to the Team A first down. And then restarted on the Referee's signal.

That's the ideal, but you probably have to deal with a celebration and getting it communicated to everybody on what will happen next. So it seems that lots of crew awareness would be needed on this one about the game clock and play clock. Especially, if it was late in a close game. And if there's a crew discussion needed, obviously the clock could be stopped for that.

[dcs07]

Video: https://youtu.be/uV2osXO5a5Q

[Kalle]

OK, based on the video there is a possibility of a bat by a team B player, but then again, based on the explanation by the referee, the crew did not rule that there was a legal bat. So, the crew got this one wrong (and badly, awarding the ball to the wrong team).

[Bulldog75]

Doesn't look like batting to me.  The contact by Team B player looked like an attempt to recover the ball, not deliberately bat it into the end zone.

Batting would change the impetus, but it doesn't matter here because Team A recovers the ball.  If Team B recovers the ball and it was fumbled into the EZ, it's a touchback and Team B gets the ball.  If it was batted and Team B recovers it it's a safety against Team B.  But if Team A recovers it in the EZ, it's a TD, but 4th down safety rules brings it back out to the spot of the fumble instead.  Or if this same play was on a try, we'd just have an unsuccessful try.

[Kalle]

Batting would change the impetus, but it doesn't matter here because Team A recovers the ball.  If Team B recovers the ball and it was fumbled into the EZ, it's a touchback and Team B gets the ball.  If it was batted and Team B recovers it it's a safety against Team B.  But if Team A recovers it in the EZ, it's a TD, but 4th down safety rules brings it back out to the spot of the fumble instead.  Or if this same play was on a try, we'd just have an unsuccessful try.

See A.R. 8-5-1-XI, it would be a safety.

[ump_ben]

See A.R. 8-5-1-XI, it would be a safety.

Is there some way to justify that case play?  You alluded to an argument for it in your other post.  8-5-1-a seems pretty clear that A in possession of the ball doesn't meet the criteria for a safety.  If it became dead by rule not in possession of a player then that would seem to qualify.  And 8-2-1-c has the exception because of the fumble so no TD.  This seems pretty straightforward but the AR disagrees so what's the logic?

[Legacy Zebra]

There are three scenarios for a safety: out of bounds, dead in defending player’s possession, or dead by rule and the defending team is responsible. The last one gets you a safety in the case of the AR because it doesn’t matter who is in possession. Team B is responsible because of their batting and it becomes dead by rule in the end zone when recovered by Team A player other than the fumbler.

The play in the video is not a touchback because the touchback rule does not have the third criteria. A touchback is only declared if the ball goes out of bounds or is dead in possession of the defending team. There is no “dead by rule” situation like there is for a safety.

[dcs07]

The relevant rules then are (emphasis added)

From 8-5-1: It is a safety when: The ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line, except from an incomplete forward pass, or becomes dead in the possession of a player on, above or behind their own goal line, or becomes dead by rule, and the defending team is responsible for the ball being there.

From 8-6-1: It is a touchback when: The ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line, except from an incomplete forward pass, or becomes dead in the possession of a player on, above or behind their own goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there.

I suppose the language the officials in the game were thinking is "becomes dead in the possession of a player behind their own goal line" but your own goal line is the one you are defending.

[sj]

Is there some way to justify that case play?  You alluded to an argument for it in your other post.  8-5-1-a seems pretty clear that A in possession of the ball doesn't meet the criteria for a safety.  If it became dead by rule not in possession of a player then that would seem to qualify.  And 8-2-1-c has the exception because of the fumble so no TD.  This seems pretty straightforward but the AR disagrees so what's the logic?

It seems the logic for the AR is that, "....the safety rule and the 4th down fumble rule would seem to be in conflict here, but the spirit and intent of the safety rule is extremely specific to this play and would supersede the 4th down fumble rule...." Trying to rewrite rules to square them can be problematic. So instead of trying to do that an interpretation is put out.

[Ralph Damren]

JUST MUTTERINGS FROM AN OLE' DUFFER....

* In NFHS, A's ball in B's EZ =  ;

* I've a leak understanding of the NCAA 4th down fumble rule, but wouldn't the fact that the runner had gone beyond the line-to-gain when the fumble occurred have an impact

* I missed the 2nd half of last night's Pat/Bear game...I'm glad i did