OK, I'll quit playing around and get to the point.
Forget momentum and all that stuff. The base scenario here is: the defending team catches or recovers an opponent's loose ball in their own end zone, then fumbles or throws a backward pass that - somehow - travels into the field of play then returns into the end zone where it goes out of bounds or is declared dead in the defending team's possession (and there is no impetus put on the ball after the fumble). Is this a touchback? Or a safety?
RR may WANT this to be a safety (and I hear from reliable sources that he does) but to date, he has not changed the Rules & Interpretations or issued a bulletin play to that effect, and I know of no one that has such a written ruling from him to a formal interpretation request. Nothing else counts.
In the mid-90s, this same scenario was formally posed to John Adams, the immediate past Sec-Ed of the Rules Committee. The scenario was posed by someone that, at the time, also believed this would be ruled as a safety, because (as the questioner surmised) AR 8-7-2-III only applied to a fumble/backward pass that went OB directly from the end zone following the fumble. Mr. Adams responded (in writing) by pointing out, quite correctly, that AR 8-7-2-III did not say that the ball went directly out of bounds; only that the ball (ultimately) went out of bounds behind the goal line. As such, unless a new impetus was imparted to the ball IN THE FIELD OF PLAY, the team that put the ball in the end zone from the field of play to begin with is still responsible for the ball being dead behind that goal line. Touchback.
As for my insistence on 'rule support,' strict reading of the 8-7-2-a (only) might lead one to believe that the fumble by the defending team imparts new impetus on the ball. If that were true, then, if the ball went directly OB from the fumble, that would be a safety. Well, AR 8-7-2-III tells us otherwise. It says touchback. And it is the ONLY rule support we have that clearly specifies touchback. But,it has been there for at least 40 years (probably a LOT longer). It is a fundamental rule.
So, let's look at AR 8-7-2-III. Uh. Ummm. Gee. Wait. That's not what 8-7-2-III used to be. What happened? Where'd it go?
Guess what? For 2011, (the previous) AR 8-7-2-III disappeared. Like a fart in the wind. Just disappeared. With no ceremony, explanation, or attention of any kind. So, what rule support do we have now to make the "direct" fumble out of bounds a touchback? I don't know.
So, there you have the facts discussion.
Now let's think logically, and in terms of fairness for the good of the game. Why should the defending team suffer a safety for fumbling or throwing a backward pass in their own end zone? Do they gain advantage by fumbling? Possible, but what is the risk vs. reward for deliberately fumbling in your own end zone? Not very favorable. Do they gain advantage by throwing a backward pass? No more than if they did in the field of play.
Bottom line: Under all previous Sec-Eds in my lifetime, impetus is what put the ball FROM THE FIELD OF PLAY INTO THE END ZONE, and impetus can not be changed in the end zone. That's not only fair and good for the game, it is a superbly simple concept. If RR wants to make his mark on the game, then return the previous AR 8-7-2-III to the book, and/or change 8-7-1 to read: "...whose player carries or imparts an impetus to it that forces it FROM THE FIELD OF PLAY across the goal line...."
Then all of this gets cleared up and made very simple. And fair.
