Need Help on a Play

[longhorn]

Wow, some great points.

I have to agreee that I am not 100% sold that 8-4-2-b does not apply...but I am 95%

Diablo makes some good points about team B getting to take the ball at the spot of illegal touching though.  In this particular play, I agree that the play would be dead when it touches the ground in the endzone.  However, had A caught it in the endzone on a crazy bounce, what would we have then?

[JasonTX]

If A touches the ball beyond the neutral zone, then illegal touching will apply.  The only thing that takes away the privelage that comes with illegal touching would be an accepted penalty.

[Andrew McCarthy]

If A touches the ball beyond the neutral zone, then illegal touching will apply.  The only thing that takes away the privelage that comes with illegal touching would be an accepted penalty.

So you're saying the result of the play is a safety but B has the option of taking the ball at the 20 because of the illegal touching in the end zone?

[Diablo]

So you're saying the result of the play is a safety but B has the option of taking the ball at the 20 because of the illegal touching in the end zone?

Even if the result of the play was a TD for Team A, Team B can void the score by taking the ball at the spot of an illegal touch.

[JasonTX]

So you're saying the result of the play is a safety but B has the option of taking the ball at the 20 because of the illegal touching in the end zone?

Yes.  This is for Diablo's variation of the play where team A touched the ball at the B-20.  The original play is a safety because the ball was dead when it touched the ground in the end zone

[Morningrise]

Wow, some great points.

I have to agreee that I am not 100% sold that 8-4-2-b does not apply...but I am 95%

According to Rom Gilbert, 8-4-2-b does not apply. See situation 7:
http://romgilbert.us/p-1008.htm

[The Ref Thats Lef]

Rickref

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?

So can we agree if this is a safety or a touchback? Personally I lean towards a safety whatever but I do not think there is a rule or interpretation that fully covers this situation.

On a different (but similar) note what would happen on this play (ball kicked from the B4) if the ball was blocked and came down at the B2 yard line where it was batted into the endzone by a B player and then

a) It touches the ground and is recovered by A
b) It touches the ground and is recovered by B
c) It is recovered by A before it touches the ground
d) It is recovered by B before it touches the ground.

[Morningrise]

On a different (but similar) note what would happen on this play (ball kicked from the B4) if the ball was blocked and came down at the B2 yard line where it was batted into the endzone by a B player and then

a) It touches the ground and is recovered by A
b) It touches the ground and is recovered by B
c) It is recovered by A before it touches the ground
d) It is recovered by B before it touches the ground.

This is much easier, since B has touched the scrimmage kick after it crossed the NZ. Now, bouncing in the EZ is immaterial.


a) Touchdown.
b) Play continues; if B recovers while down, it's a safety.
c) Touchdown.
d) Play continues; if B recovers while down, it's a safety.

[The Ref Thats Lef]

Does it make any difference the touching is in the neutral zone extended?

[Kalle]

Does it make any difference the touching is in the neutral zone extended?

No, unless you deem the "bat" to be a block, which I really like to see to happen.

[chymechowder]

What if the batted ball doesn't make it into the endzone?  Same thing, but let's back up a bit for some more room:

4th and goal from the B-16.  Blocked field goal.  B legally bats the ball backward at the B-18.  The ball is recovered/downed by A70 at the B-5.

B 1/10 at the B5?  They're still not getting the missed field goal provision because they're responsible for the ball being on the 5?

[JasonTX]

What if the batted ball doesn't make it into the endzone?  Same thing, but let's back up a bit for some more room:

4th and goal from the B-16.  Blocked field goal.  B legally bats the ball backward at the B-18.  The ball is recovered/downed by A70 at the B-5.

B 1/10 at the B5?  They're still not getting the missed field goal provision because they're responsible for the ball being on the 5?

Impetus is only for putting the ball into the end zone.  If the ball don't go into the end zone then the provisions of the missed field goal will still come into play.

[T.C. Welton]

I have it on very good authority...

--Ball is dead when it touches the ground in the EZ
--Ball dead in B's EZ with B putting it there
---Safety

[KB]

(referring to : kick is blocked, batted backwards by B behind the NZ, ends up in B's EZ without B touching it beyond the NZ)

If the ball touches the ground in the EZ, or is recovered by B and not brought out, or goes OOB in the EZ, we're probably all agreed it is a safety.

The only problem is if A touches the ball in the EZ before it becomes dead, and there seems to be a contradiction between the impetus/safety rule and the IT rule, where B would end up with ball at their own 20.

I'd still go with the safety, for the time being.