Safety or Touchback (video)

[TXMike]

This is one we have discussed before but don't recall ever actually having video of this type play.  Tough play and less than optimal camera angles, but......if we use our generally accepted philosophies of 1 - No cheap scores and 2 - ball must be ALL the way out to be out, don't we rule touchback?
(A back judge would have been straddling the goal line         )

http://youtu.be/9LKDz5gnxgc

[CenTexTM]

Touchback all the way, by letter of the law (although not great angles, it does appear that the tip of the ball was hanging over the goal line before the player touched it) and certainly by spirit (when in doubt, no cheap scores).  Even going by game sense... if the ball is an inch out when the player grabs it, is this honestly one we want to call a safety?  I'm sure there's nothing formal on that type of guidance, but it just seems like we're creating more problems for ourselves and really interjecting ourselves into the game when we make a call like that which awards points, particularly when our mechanics are not rock solid.

[Kalle]

Even with the bad angle I refuse to believe that the ball was possessed outside the end zone and then taken in. And even if it was, it would have been so close that IMO the correct call would still be a touchback.

[MJT]

100% touchback. If in doubt, it is a TB, and if not anything else, there is doubt.

[clearwall]

100% touchback. If in doubt, it is a TB, and if not anything else, there is doubt.

Darn, you beat me to it. Rule 8-5-1 "when in question, it is a touchback, not a safety"

[Atlanta Blue]

I find the results here interesting, especially compared to the repsonses given to the Wofford play:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-L5CC7QuaTU


Many in that play said, "Touchdown", when the player obviously had no intention of running out of the end zone.  Yet here, when the player may well have picked up the ball outside the end zone and carried back into the end zone, everyone seems to be saying, "No cheap scores, if it's close enough, touchback".

Personally, I think they should both be touchbacks.

[centexsports]

You can see the referee looking (he leans towards the field) to determine whether the ball is on the field or not.  With him being at least a yard or two closer than the camera, I side with the call as made on teh field. 

Also, I know him and he knows the rules and mechanics as well as anybody that will call this weekend.   I say he made the correct call.

One more thing.   Go back and look real close and see if the ball doesn't touch his foot just before he picks it up.   I believe it did and in the field of play.
 

[Osric Pureheart]

Momentum exception.  A's ball 1st and 10 on their 1-yard line.

 

[Andrew McCarthy]

The clock should be wound when the ball is touched in the field of play.

[Sonofanump]

Was this 5 or 7 man (I am not sure where LOS guys would start in 5 man)?  Too bad one of them could not bring information to get this call corrected (whether or not technically this was possessed in the field of play, philosophically this has to be a touchback).

[TxSkyBolt]

5-man and it was a free kick in short free kick mechanics so R was all alone. (From what I remember)

[TXMike]

One more thing.   Go back and look real close and see if the ball doesn't touch his foot just before he picks it up.   I believe it did and in the field of play.

  What bearing does this have on the play (if it touched his foot or not)?

[centexsports]

Under the circumstances being discussed, none because it was not seen or called.   But it looks to me like the ball hit his foot in play which changed the direction of roll and then the palyer carried the ball into the endzone (Safety).   

 

[RedTD]

Yes, "when in question" it is a TB - BUT from our view( camera's) it may be "in question" but the R is standing just a few yards away has a good look at it and does not hesitate. Therefore, I'll go with his call.

Not that it makes any difference but if there was a camera looking straight down the GL and it clearly showed the ball was short of the GL by several inches - if the R ruled TB what would be the discussion?

To me, it appears the R does not have a question - Safety!

[TXMike]

Well you made 2 statements so I will address each as they have different bearing on the matter. 

1 - The ball DID hit the player's foot while the foot was on the goal line.  Not that material that the foot was on the goal line other than to help us see where the ball travelled during its journey.   The fact it hit his foot has no bearing on whether the play is a safety or not.

2 - "Carrying it into the end zone" - That would presume part iof the ball was not already "in the end zone" which it can be even if it is in the air and not touching anything in the end zone.  Many of us are saying since the ball still had part of itself beyond the plane of the goal line when possessed by B,  this is a touchback, both by rule and by philosophy.

[JasonTX]

The ball appears to hit the players foot which is on the goalline.  That would then mean the ball was breaking the plain of the goalline.  This is a toucback by rule since the ball wasn't completely out when he brought it all the way into the end zone.

[Atlanta Blue]

Argue all you want, there is no definitive view that shows whether or not the ball broke the plane of the goal line.  Yes, it touched the player's foot, but the foot was straddling the line, so depending on where on the foot it hit, that doesn't give us a definitive answer either.

If any part of the ball broke the plane of the goal line before it was possessed by the player, it should be a touchback.  If it didn't, it should be a safety.  The rules are simple, the rest is the judgment of the referee as to whether the ball broke the plane at any point.

And were this a college or pro game, I don't think there is enough visual evidence to change the official's casll, whatever it may have been.

"Upon further review, the play on the field stands."  Isn't reversed, isn't confirmed, it simply stands.

[jg-me]

Allow me to pose a question. This player is recovering a loose ball. The criteria for a recovery and catch are essentially the same. Did this player complete the recovery before or after the ball crossed the GL (presuming the ball had not crossed prior to him putting his hand on the ball)?

[TXMike]

I like where you are trying to go.  Unfortunately kid picked ball up with one hand on top of ball  That demonstrates firm grasp and control to me.  That being said, I still think part of the ball is penetrating the plane when he does it so I still have TB