Safety or Touchback

[skip1]

B1 intercepts a pass in his end zone. He starts to run it out but fumbles. B2 attempts to catch the airborne fumble at the 2-yard line but muffs it back into the end zone where B3 falls on it. What do we have? A touch back or a safety

[Atlanta Blue]

Safety.  B brought the ball out of the end zone, and was responsible for the force that put it back in.  And no, attempting to catch the airborne fumble is not a new force, the fumble was the force.

[skip1]

A new force can only apply to a grounded loose ball. This ball was never grounded. If it had hit the ground this would be easy.

[Atlanta Blue]

Correct, a NEW force has not been added, I never claimed that it had.  In fact, I even stated it.  However, the FUMBLE was the force that put the ball in the end zone, and the fumble was caused by B.  What happened at the 2 yard line (the muff of the airborne ball) is basically meaningless.

So B fumbled the ball out of the end zone, and it legally, and without new force, made it's way back into the end zone, so B was responsible for putting it there.  That makes it a safety.

[Curious]

AB is correct.  These are two separate events.

Force is only relevant from the field of play into the end zone. 

Force #1: A's pass into B's EZ
Force #2: B's fumble.  Since the fumble left B1's EZ and B2 muffed it back into his EZ while in the air, the force remains B's fumble (2-13-2).

There is no "new force" added to either A's intercepted pass or B's fumble. 

It's kind of like the punt from K's end zone which hits R and rebounds back into K's end zone.  The force remains K's punt (8.5.1C).

[skip1]

If K kicks out of their end zone hits R in the air and is downed by K in their EZ we know it's a safety. If B intercepts a pass and is downed in his end zone it would be a touch back. If there is no new force why is it automatically a safety when the fumble is downed in B's end zone? I'm not claiming that I know the answer to this. I posted this because I can't seem to find a definitive answer any where.

[AlUpstateNY]

You and me both, Skip.  Does it matter where the ball was fumbled?  The initial play says, "He starts to run it out but fumbles", so I'm not really sure "where" he was when he fumbled.  If he was out of the EZ, no question it's a safety, but if he was still in the EZ when he lost possession, and the fumble was subsequently recovered in the EZ, the responsibility of the ball's movement is clearly the fumble, which was never grounded to acquire a new force.

Since the ball was fumbled in the EZ, and subsequently recovered in the EZ, with no new force involved, wouldn't the result be a touchback?  It doesn't seem that wherever the ball might have gone while it was loose makes any difference so long as nothing happened to it to create a new force, which we agree was still caused by the fumble.

Since a new force is not a factor, this play seems the same as a situation where the fumbled ball rolled out of the EZ, and then rolled back in under it's own momentum before it was recovered.  The material spots seem limited to where the ball was fumbled and where it was recovered.

[jg-me]

Force definitely is a topic that can be confusing. I think it is much simpler if we keep two things in mind. The first is that force only is at issue the FINAL time the ball crosses from the field of play, across a goal line and into the end zone. It matters not how many times the ball crosses the goal line - we only care about the last time. Second, unless there has been a rule change I am unaware of, the spot where the force is intially applied is not a factor - i.e. force can be generated while the ball is either in the field of play or while the ball is in an end zone.
  In the play as originally stated, the last time the ball crossed the goal line from the field of play was after the fumble. The fumble was the force on the ball at that time and it is of no mattter that the force was generated while the ball was in the end zone.

[azsteam]

Let's look at the my favorite rule in the Book Rule 2.  2-13-1 Force

The term force is used only in connection with the goal line and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end zone.

The force in this play was the INT.  The fumble that was muffed in the air and no new force was added, the play results in a Touchback.

[jg-me]

Check your favorite rule again. An interception is not force in any, shape or form. THe interception simply puts B1 in possesion of the ball. His carry and then subsequent fumble are the force exerted on the ball and you correctly point out that the muff does not add new force in this play. There is no getting around the fact that the force on the ball is B1's fumble the final time it crosses the goal line from the field of play and into B's end zone. The force that was on the ball due to A's original forward pass becomes a non-factor once B intercepted the ball and fumbled it into the FOP.

[azsteam]

The interception came from Team A's pass.  Which that pass was the force that put the ball in the end zone.  2-13-1 cont. 

Initial force results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap.

.  That's the only force that put the ball over the goal line in this play. 

[Atlanta Blue]

The interception came from Team A's pass.  Which that pass was the force that put the ball in the end zone.  2-13-1 cont.  .  That's the only force that put the ball over the goal line in this play.

And that's where your answer falls apart.  When B fumbled the ball, it LEFT the end zone.  It then RETURNED to the end zone via the fumble.  The fumble was the force that put the ball into the end zone the LAST TIME.

[Harry]

And that's where your answer falls apart.  When B fumbled the ball, it LEFT the end zone.  It then RETURNED to the end zone via the fumble.  The fumble was the force that put the ball into the end zone the LAST TIME.

What if it was fumbled out of the end zone with a reverse bounce and was recovered in the end zone?  What would you rule this?

[Harry]

Touchback.  The rule is pretty clear that a fumble in flight that was not grounded is not subject to a new force.

2-13
SECTION 13 FORCE
ART. 1 . . . Force is the result of energy exerted by a player which provides
movement of the ball. The term force is used only in connection with the goal line
and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end zone. Initial force
results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap. After a fumble, kick or backward
pass has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a
muff.

ART. 2 . . . Responsibility for forcing the ball from the field of play across a
goal line is attributed to the player who carries, snaps, passes, fumbles or kicks
the ball, unless a new force is applied to either a backward pass, kick or fumble
that has been grounded.

ART. 3 . . . The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not
considered a new force.

[Harry]

Check your favorite rule again. An interception is not force in any, shape or form. THe interception simply puts B1 in possesion of the ball. His carry and then subsequent fumble are the force exerted on the ball and you correctly point out that the muff does not add new force in this play. There is no getting around the fact that the force on the ball is B1's fumble the final time it crosses the goal line from the field of play and into B's end zone. The force that was on the ball due to A's original forward pass becomes a non-factor once B intercepted the ball and fumbled it into the FOP.

I disagree with this.  We agree that the pass was the force that put the ball in the end zone.  The fumble is not a new force because it is from the end zone to the field of play and back.  Basically, the ball never left the end zone.  The force that put the ball in the end zone was the pass.

[jg-me]

I understand the appeal of trying to mke this a TB. However in your argument for making the pass the force responsible for the ball ending up in the end zone you address the overriding fact - "it is from the end zone to the field of play AND BACK" (emphasis mine). The pass is not what caused the ball to come back into the end zone after it left (and it did leave as you state yourself). The fumble is the force on the ball when it returns from the field of play to the end zone. It's a tough way to give up a safety but B did fumble the ball and, in this play, is paying the price.

[Harry]

I understand the appeal of trying to mke this a TB. However in your argument for making the pass the force responsible for the ball ending up in the end zone you address the overriding fact - "it is from the end zone to the field of play AND BACK" (emphasis mine). The pass is not what caused the ball to come back into the end zone after it left (and it did leave as you state yourself). The fumble is the force on the ball when it returns from the field of play to the end zone. It's a tough way to give up a safety but B did fumble the ball and, in this play, is paying the price.

I sent this play to someone I really trust with the rules and they said basically what you did.  It is a safety.

[bossman72]

Guys, the ball left the end zone on the fumble by B.  It returned to the endzone because of B's fumble.  The force/impetus that put the ball in the endzone before it became dead is the fumble by B, NOT the interception and NOT the muff by the fumbler's teammate.

Since B is responsible for the force/impetus that put the ball in the end zone, this is a safety.

[Curious]

I sent this play to someone I really trust with the rules and they said basically what you did.  It is a safety.

Harry, you don't trust US??

Incidentally, you asked a (good) question  earlier as to whether it would be a Safety or TB if B's fumble hit the ground outside B's EZ, bounced back (untouched - my edit) into the EZ, and was subsequently recovered by B.  For the same reason as the original "Safety-call" arguments, this is also a safety.  B's fumble (grounded in this second scenario) remains the force.  Just because the fumble was grounded, B's force was never spent nor was there a new force added.  In this instance, for a new force to be added, the ball would have to "at rest" or "nearly at rest". 

See Case Book play 8.3.3 (2011 Book).  Similar.... 

 

[Harry]

Harry, you don't trust US??

Incidentally, you asked a (good) question  earlier as to whether it would be a Safety or TB if B's fumble hit the ground outside B's EZ, bounced back (untouched - my edit) into the EZ, and was subsequently recovered by B.  For the same reason as the original "Safety-call" arguments, this is also a safety.  B's fumble (grounded in this second scenario) remains the force.  Just because the fumble was grounded, B's force was never spent nor was there a new force added.  In this instance, for a new force to be added, the ball would have to "at rest" or "nearly at rest". 

See Case Book play 8.3.3 (2011 Book).  Similar.... 

Yes, I do.  But there was disagreement in this thread amongst people I trust.   

[mbyron]

Guys, the ball left the end zone on the fumble by B.  It returned to the endzone because of B's fumble.  The force/impetus that put the ball in the endzone before it became dead is the fumble by B, NOT the interception and NOT the muff by the fumbler's teammate.

Since B is responsible for the force/impetus that put the ball in the end zone, this is a safety.

I agree with the growing consensus: the ball left the EZ, re-entered, and became dead there. We must ask what force caused the ball to enter the EZ the second time. Since it's B's fumble, the proper ruling is safety.

I will add that the ruling would be the same even if A muffed the fumble instead of B. IOW, same play, B intercepts in the EZ, fumbles out of the EZ, but A muffs the airborne fumble back into the EZ. Still a safety, and good luck selling it to the B coach!

[tempestos]

This is a touchback.  Let's break it down.

(1) The ball is in the endzone because of A's pass, which is intercepted in the endzone.

(2) Team B's fumble of the ball from the endzone cannot be a new force because force only applies to a ball that is already out of the endzone and, due to the force, goes into the endzone.  Because the ball is already in the endzone when Team B fumbles it, force is not a factor.

(3) The muff in the field of play is not a new force.

(4) The only force that put the ball in the endzone is Team A's pass, so it is a Touchback.

When the ball is ultimately recovered in the endzone by Team B it is no different than if the fumbled ball never left the endzone and Team B recovered it there.  We would all rule that a touchback.

For this to be a safety, Team B would have had to carry the ball out of the endzone and then carry, fumble, pass, or kick it back across the goal line into the endzone.  That didn't happen here.

Everyone seems to get caught up on the loose ball temporarily coming back into the field of play before reentering the endzone.  That's irrelevant if a new force wasn't placed on the ball while it was in the field of play that caused it to reenter the endzone.  Team B would have had to place a new force on the ball while it was in the field of play and that causes the ball to reenter the endzone for this to be a safety.

[mbyron]

(2) Team B's fumble of the ball from the endzone cannot be a new force because force only applies to a ball that is already out of the endzone and, due to the force, goes into the endzone.  Because the ball is already in the endzone when Team B fumbles it, force is not a factor.

Your reasoning is incorrect here, and this point has already been addressed somewhat. Perhaps I can clarify.

Basically, you have it backward. You're reasoning from the initiation of the force being directed out of the EZ to the conclusion that this is not a new force, since force is relevant only when the ball is entering the EZ.

That's backward. The fact is, the ball entered the EZ twice. First, due to the INT. But it subsequently left the EZ, so the force that caused the first entry is irrelevant.

The issue of force arises because the ball entered the EZ a second time (and then became dead). What force caused the ball to re-enter? Not the muff, because the fumble was not grounded. So the fumble was the force.

True, the fumble ALSO caused the ball to LEAVE the EZ. But that's irrelevant, since force is relevant only when the ball enters the EZ. The fact that the fumble is irrelevant to the ball LEAVING the EZ does not entail that it's irrelevant to the ball RE-ENTERING the EZ, or that the fumble is permanently irrelevant to the issue of force.

Hope that helps!

[mbyron]

Everyone seems to get caught up on the loose ball temporarily coming back into the field of play before reentering the endzone.  That's irrelevant if a new force wasn't placed on the ball while it was in the field of play that caused it to reenter the endzone.  Team B would have had to place a new force on the ball while it was in the field of play and that causes the ball to reenter the endzone for this to be a safety.

Please show where in the rule it states that the new force must be applied in the field rather than the EZ. That's simply mistaken.

[Rulesman]

Please show where in the rule it states that the new force must be applied in the field rather than the EZ. That's simply mistaken.

Read the definition of force - don't have a book in front of me, but I believe it is 2-13-1.