Safety or Touchback??

[GPC2]

A 2&Goal at B6. Running back A33 fumbles the ball at the B2 and the ball rolls into the end zone. B44 picks up the loose ball in the end zone and attempts to run with the ball. He is contacted and fumbles the ball. The ball rolls out to the B2 where A55 muffs it into the pylon. While the ball was loose after B44’s fumble B77 pulled A55 to the ground by his face mask at the B6.


Is the result of the play a Safety or a Touchback? Our group settled on B 1st & 10 on B3 (we called it a Touchback), but there was discussion that it may be a Safety.

[MJT]

A 2&Goal at B6. Running back A33 fumbles the ball at the B2 and the ball rolls into the end zone. B44 picks up the loose ball in the end zone and attempts to run with the ball. He is contacted and fumbles the ball. The ball rolls out to the B2 where A55 muffs it into the pylon. While the ball was loose after B44’s fumble B77 pulled A55 to the ground by his face mask at the B6.


Is the result of the play a Safety or a Touchback? Our group settled on B 1st & 10 on B3 (we called it a Touchback), but there was discussion that it may be a Safety.

A muff can only be a new impetus if the ball is at rest. Thus if it was at rest and thus a new impetus, we have a TB (B-1-10-B3.) If it was not at rest, and no new impetus, then the B is responsible for the ball being behind their EZ the 2nd time, so we have a safety.

[El Macman]

...then the B is responsible for the ball being behind their EZ the 2nd time, so we have a safety.

How do you figure?

[MJT]

How do you figure?

They fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then came back into the EZ. See Reddings 9-59 on page 143 as it is pretty much an identical play.

[chymechowder]

when the ball hit the pylon, it was still a loose ball from B's fumble in their endzone. so isn't that the same as if B fumbled the ball straight out of their endzone (touchback)?

basic spot is B20. enforce half the distance from the spot of the foul. 

[jg-me]

It's not the same thing. The last time the live ball crossed from the field of play and into B's end zone, B was responsible for the impetus - safety.

[MJT]

when the ball hit the pylon, it was still a loose ball from B's fumble in their endzone. so isn't that the same as if B fumbled the ball straight out of their endzone (touchback)?

basic spot is B20. enforce half the distance from the spot of the foul.

No, cuz the ball went into the field of play. Reddings has the example.

[MJT]

It's not the same thing. The last time the live ball crossed from the field of play and into B's end zone, B was responsible for the impetus - safety.

jg-me, weigh in on my "penalty enforcement" question I posted earlier 2nt.  I want to see what you think.

[El Macman]

They fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then came back into the EZ. See Reddings 9-59 on page 143 as it is pretty much an identical play.

That's the reason I don't get Redding's Study Guide - it has some good info, but also has some of what he'd LIKE to have, not what is 'by rule,' and this is one.

We are now going to establish a running dialog of logic and fact.

If B gets possession in their own end zone of a ball loose from an opponent's pass, kick, or fumble, then, before advancing out of that end zone, fumbles or throws a backward pass that goes out of bounds at a sideline in the end zone or the end line, what is the result?

[chymechowder]

No, cuz the ball went into the field of play. Reddings has the example.

ah. I dont have the reddings book.  I thought that if B fumbled in their endzone after a COP, then they "got credit" for the ball having already being in the EZ. that is to say, it's different than if B CARRIES the ball out of the EZ and then fumbles it back in.

so you're saying if B intercepts a pass in the EZ, then fumbles, and A muffs it into the field of play, then A muffs it back into the EZ where its downed by B,  it's a safety and A gets 2 pts?  philosophically at least, that seems odd to me.

[MJT]

ah. I dont have the reddings book.  I thought that if B fumbled in their endzone after a COP, then they "got credit" for the ball having already being in the EZ. that is to say, it's different than if B CARRIES the ball out of the EZ and then fumbles it back in.

so you're saying if B intercepts a pass in the EZ, then fumbles, and A muffs it into the field of play, then A muffs it back into the EZ where its downed by B,  it's a safety and A gets 2 pts?  philosophically at least, that seems odd to me.

I don't have my Redding's here, but I believe that is the exact play they have.

El MacMan, Redding's is written by RR, and he is our rules guy. He is the #1 man for CFO and our rules book. His Redding's Study Guide is simply a book that adds more examples, details, and the best is the explanations and rationale behind the rules. It is the reference we use to clarify things and get the expanded reasoning behind a rule. If you have bought one before and used it for a year and don't like it, not a problem with your opinion, but if you have not used it for a year, give it a try. We use it for references on our test almost every week.

[El Macman]

MJT,

Let's stick to the question at hand.

If B gets possession in their own end zone of a ball loose from an opponent's pass, kick, or fumble, then, before advancing out of that end zone, fumbles or throws a backward pass that goes out of bounds at a sideline in the end zone or the end line, what is the result?

[MJT]

MJT,

Let's stick to the question at hand.

If B gets possession in their own end zone of a ball loose from an opponent's pass, kick, or fumble, then, before advancing out of that end zone, fumbles or throws a backward pass that goes out of bounds at a sideline in the end zone or the end line, what is the result?

Touchback without a doubt. That is not a problem at all. The problems is, that did not happen. They fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then back into the EZ. That is why it is a safety.

[MJT]

B is responsible for the ball getting out of the EZ, and when it gets back into the EZ without a new impetus, it is their responsibility and that is why we have a safety. AR 7-2-4-I

[El Macman]

Touchback without a doubt. That is not a problem at all. The problems is, that did not happen. They fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then back into the EZ. That is why it is a safety.

One step at a time, please.
What is the rule support for the touchback? (Hint: It used to be there.)

(BTW, when I refer to 'rule support,' I mean in the Rules, Interpretations, Play Situations Bulletins, or even a written response from a Secretary-Editor to a specific rules question. Those are the only things that count. Neither Redding's guide, nor any other unofficial publication, hard copy or cyber-published, have any standing regarding NCAA rules.)

[chymechowder]

If B fumbles the ball from his EZ and it rolls OOB's at the 2 yard line, the result is a safety cuz of the forward fumble rule, correct.

I don't have any book with me to cite, but isn't this a touchback?

[El Macman]

I don't have any book with me to cite, but isn't this a touchback?

Yes, it is. But we'll get to that eventually, as MJT and I progress through our dialog.

[MJT]

Yes, it is. But we'll get to that eventually, as MJT and I progress through our dialog.

Yes, it is a TB, my bad on that one.   

[MJT]

Ok men. When I first read the question, I thought TB as well. But, I was curious about if I was correct cuz a forward fumble OOB's by A is a safety when brought back to the spot of the fumble. This is why I went digging in Redding's and found the example saying "B fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then back into the EZ and is a safety."

I know Redding's is not the rule book, but it is based on the book and written by our rules man, although it may have been taken over by another as stated by another. It does clarify, provide more examples, and give rationales.

I wish we could get this to RR to see what he says, cuz his book is pretty clear on it. The question is identical except for it was an interception, not a fumble recovery.

[El Macman]

Ok men. When I first read the question, I thought TB as well. But, I was curious about if I was correct cuz a forward fumble OOB's by A is a safety when brought back to the spot of the fumble. This is why I went digging in Redding's and found the example saying "B fumbled the ball, which went into the field of play, and then back into the EZ and is a safety."

I know Redding's is not the rule book, but it is based on the book and written by our rules man, although it may have been taken over by another as stated by another. It does clarify, provide more examples, and give rationales.

I wish we could get this to RR to see what he says, cuz his book is pretty clear on it. The question is identical except for it was an interception, not a fumble recovery.

MJT, humor me. Continue our dialog and answer the current question at hand - what is the rule support for the touchback?

[MJT]

MJT, humor me. Continue our dialog and answer the current question at hand - what is the rule support for the touchback?

Sorry, thought I did, but with all the stuff since I need you to clarify what exactly you want me to give rules support to for a TB?

[Kalle]

Can I continue the dialog, as I think this has been ruled by JA and/or RR to be a safety as the impetus for the ball last being in the end zone is from the team B fumble (the momentum exception rule spells this out).

The rule support for the last question about a touchback after a fumble that remains in the end zone is 8-6-1-a.

[mccormicw]

2011 CFO Play Interpretations 1 Momentum Exception
10. B47 intercepts a pass at the B-3. His momentum carries him into the end zone where he fumbles the ball. It rolls into the field of play. A33 recovers at the B-2 but he is hit and fumbles. The ball rolls into the end zone and over the end line.
RULING: Touchback. Team B’s ball, first and 10 at the B-20. The momentum rule applies only if the ball remains in the end zone and is declared dead there. (8-5-1-a-Exc.)

[clearwall]

Momentum rule wouldnt apply here. The ball was IN the EZ when B recovered.

[mccormicw]

I believe that momentum is not a factor in either case (athough it does start the example play for the interpretation).  In the interpretation, the ruling was a touchback because B fumbled a ball from their end zone into the field of play and it came back into the end zone.  The momemtum rule, if a factor, would not have resulted in a touchback.  The only way a touchback is possible is if the momentum rule is not a factor.