Need Help on a Play

[longhorn]

Can someone help me with this one.  It is a tough one to me the swirls around status of the ball (kick) and potentially fourthdown fumble rule.

4th and Goal at the  B4.  A's field goal attempt is blocked and the ball doesn't cross the LOS.  At the B6 yard line B70 bats the grounded ball backward.  The ball ends up in B's endzone where tackle A70 fall on it.

Thanks All!

[JasonTX]

No fumble has occurred so you don't need to worry about the 4th fumble.  This is a kick play.  The ball was untouced by team B beyond the neutral zone.  The impetus is with the bat by Team B.  Since it's still a kick that is untouced beyond the neutral zone by team B, in team B's end zone the ball becomes dead.  The result is a safety.

[longhorn]

My thoughts were focused primarily on does the bat change the status of the ball.  It is a kick until someone catches or recovers.  I know batting changes impetus, I just am not sure whether or not it can change the status of the ball.

[Hawkeye]

8-7-2-c

c. A loose ball retains its original status when there is new impetus.

[longhorn]

Thanks guys!

Okay, I read up on this more...

This is a SAFETY.

The status of the ball does not change with the batting, it is still a kick.  However, the batting does change the impetus (how it got to the endzone).  Ball is dead in team B's endzone with team B putting it there, the very definition of a safety.

Rule 8-7-2

Article 2.
a.  The impetus imparted by a player who kickes, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball's progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team.

b.  Initial impetus is considered expended and the responsibility for the ball's progress is charged to a player:

   1.  If he kicks a ball not in player possession or bats a loose ball after it strikes the ground.)

c.  A loose ball retains its original status when there is new impetus.

__________________________________________
(c) says that this is still a kick
(b1) says it has new impetus

Therefore, we have a kick dead in B's endzone with B responsible for it being there.

[Welpe]

Interesting.  I think I would have treated this as a touchback but now reading this thread and re-reading 6-3-9 I see the error in my ways.

I am going to "borrow" this play for our local chapter's forum.   

[longhorn]

Well, there is another thread going on a similar subject right now and I have been keeping up with it also.  It discusses a similar situation and the possibility of a touchback.

Looking at 6-3-9 alone, it seems that if this was untouched by B beyond the NZ, this would be a touchback once it touched the ground in the EZ.  The batting occured behind the NZ.

However, this has to be looked at ALONG WITH 8-5 (Safety) and 8-7 (Impetus).

6-3-9 was clearly meant for your "typical" scrimmage kick where the kicking team has put the ball in the EZ.

When you include the impetus, I believe this is a safety.  What are your thoughts?

[Welpe]

I believe 6-3-9 still applies, but we need to precisely look at the wording of the rule (which is what I realized when re-reading the rule).  Notice it doesn't say that B is awarded a touchback, it says that the ball is dead and belongs to B.

2-2-6

ARTICLE 6. “Belongs to,’’ as contrasted with “in possession,’’ denotes
custody of a dead ball. Such custody may be temporary, because the ball
must next be put in play in accordance with rules governing the existing
situation.

[rickref]

If A is falling on this in the endzone and the block occurs behind the NZ and B bats the ball behind the NZ how is this not a touch down for A?

Anyone for A could have gotten the ball behind the NZ and advanced it. Seems to me ball status was a kick yet it was batted. Which charges that responsibility to B. A recovered in the end zone. Sounds like a TD not a saftey.

[Welpe]

Rick, the ball is dead as soon as it touches the ground in the endzone.

[longhorn]

The batting changes responsibility (impetus), but the status of the ball is still a kick, that has not been touched by B beyond the NZ.  Therefore, A's touching is illegal.

[Welpe]

The batting changes responsibility (impetus), but the status of the ball is still a kick, that has not been touched by B beyond the NZ.  Therefore, A's touching is illegal.

I agree IF the ball has not touched the ground in the endzone.  Since it seems it has in your play, then the ball is dead.

[rickref]

I folllow you but that coaches conferenece is going to suck eggs.

[longhorn]

So Rick, you have Safety or Touchback.

The coaches conference is going to be quite bad.  If he could not yell for a couple minutes we could explain it to him.

[rickref]

I need to think but it sounds conflicting. If status is a kick and it is untouched beyond the NZ yet batted behind the nz by B, and it lands in the end zone technically it is dead and we can not even have an illegal touch by A. Thus I would say TB. It is almost it sounds liek in this situation B can bat it back, then have no chnace to recover it in their end zoen to save themselves form Safety. It does not make any sense to me.

[The Ref Thats Lef]

Rickref

As long as the ball does not touch the ground in the endzone team B can advance it. If they do not want to have the problem then they can refrain from batting it backwards.

This question normally gets more confusing if a team A player catches the bat in the endzone as ws sort of mentioned. Anyone care to tell me what happens then?

[copedaddy]

I'm going to have to agree with Rickref on this one. B is responsible for the ball being in the NZ. I don't think normal kick rules apply because the kick did not cross the NZ, B's batting put it in the EZ. I say TD  , buy hey I'm just a back judge

[JasonTX]

Regardless if the ball crosses the neutral zone or not, it's still a kick.  Batting changes the impetus, but as the rules state, the play type will remain the same even when impetus changes.  

1.  We have a kick that is untouched by Team B beyond the neutral zone.  True.

2.  A kick that goes into the end zone untouched beyond the neutral zone by team B becomes dead.  True

3.  The Bat by team changed the impetus.  True

4.  It's still a kick untouched beyond the neutral zone by team B.  True

So, B is responsible for a kick being in the end zone, that was untouched by team B beyond the NZ.  If B is resposible for a ball being dead in their end zone the result is a safety.  

[KB]

Rickref

As long as the ball does not touch the ground in the endzone team B can advance it. If they do not want to have the problem then they can refrain from batting it backwards.

This question normally gets more confusing if a team A player catches the bat in the endzone as ws sort of mentioned. Anyone care to tell me what happens then?

It is still a safety. Since the kick is untouched by B AFTER it crossed the NZ, A cannot touch the ball legally, therefore they cannot score a TD. But they can prevent B from carrying it back into the field of play and are awarded the 2 pts.

[Kalle]

The coaches conference is going to be quite bad.  If he could not yell for a couple minutes we could explain it to him.

Just remember that you, not the coach, decides how long a coach's conference is going to be. Explain the rule once, ask if the coach understands your explanation, end it. Don't stay there arguing, that is not the point of the conference, when you know the rule and the coach obviously doesn't.

[Welpe]

It is still a safety. Since the kick is untouched by B AFTER it crossed the NZ, A cannot touch the ball legally, therefore they cannot score a TD. But they can prevent B from carrying it back into the field of play and are awarded the 2 pts.

Here's the part I'm still tripping up over.  I think we've agreed that 8-4-2-b shouldn't apply in this situation because B's bat doesn't meet the spirit of the rule.

We still have illegal touching of scrimmage kick in B's endzone, which would give them the option of taking the ball at that spot.  But since Team B put the impetus on the ball, them taking it in the endzone would result in a safety and not being awarded the ball on the B-20?

[Etref]

The "kick" did not cross the NZ till the bat by B which did not change this from a kick play. The ball was legally declared dead in B endzone because impetus by B put it in the EZ. Safety, it cannot be a TD as this is a kick and since B did not touch beyond the NZ A cannot gain possession.

[Diablo]

I think we've agreed that 8-4-2-b shouldn't apply in this situation because B's bat doesn't meet the spirit of the rule.

I am still on the fence over this.  What spirit in the rule do you think applies?

We still have illegal touching of scrimmage kick in B's endzone, which would give them the option of taking the ball at that spot.  But since Team B put the impetus on the ball, them taking it in the endzone would result in a safety and not being awarded the ball on the B-20?

Consider the following scenario.
Team A punts.
A23 touches the ball at the B-20.
B12 muffs the ball at the B-8.
To prevent a Team A player from recovering the kick, B12 bats the ball backward over Team B's endline.

Doesn't 6-3-2-a states that Team B can take the ball at the spot of the violation (B-20)?  There are 2 exceptions listed in 6-3-2-a and neither involve a change in impetus or safety.

Closer to the play on the table, passage 6-3-11 states, when illegal touching occurs in B's EZ, the B-20 becomes the spot of the violation.  Again, no exceptions dealing with impetus or safety.

[tyro01]

The ball is dead by rule when it hits the ground in Team B's endzone.  The status of the ball is still a kick, even though the legal batting changed the impetus. The impetus of the kick was changed once the kick touched the ground and the ball was batted by B.  This meant that the responsibility for the kick being in the endzone changed during the scrimmage kick play, from the impetus of the kick to the impetus of the batting.  The result of the play is a safety as B, the batting team, is responsible for the kick being in it's own endzone.  Because the kick touched the ground in B's endzone, the kick play and the ball is dead by rule.

6-3-9 in this case, has to do with what made the scrimmage kick play dead, as the scrimmage kick struck the ground in B's endzone before B touched it beyond the neutral zone.       

[TXSmogs]

Let's discuss this in terms of a 5 man crew in a HS game in Texas.  When the kick was blocked, three officials may have seen the bat by B (with the assumption that the kick was from on of the hash marks) - the R, U and the wing official on that side.  Maybe only one would see it depending on where the 22 players were located @ the time of the batting.  The other wing and especially the B and L, if he was still under the post should be able to see the ball was not touched by B beyond the line of scrimmage.  One or both should blow the ball dead ASA it touches the EZ and signal TB, if they didn't see the bat by B.  The first thing the R should do is check with the official who saw the batting to determine the direction.  The reason I bring this up - sometimes in the heat of the moment and official can get forward and backward confused because they are basing forward on the direction A is going.  After it is made clear to the affected crew members that B caused the still kick to be in the EZ - the R can change the call to Safety.  If we are all clear on what happened and the rules application - the ensuing caoches' conferences should be short and sweet.  My point is - chances are no one official will see the entire play, so as usual - crew communication is key
 


2