4th down fumble vs batted into end zone, rec by A

[dammitbobby]

4th and 3 at the B8.  A22 fumbles at the B4, ball is loose on the ground, and B45 bats the ball backwards into the EZ, where A80 recovers.

By definition, shouldn't this be a safety, since B put new impetus on the ball to put it in the EZ? (8-5-1, Safeties)

But 4th down fumble rule states that if recovered by A, ball goes back to the spot of the fumble. (7-2-2exception 2)

Possession/down and distance?

(Not my original question btw, but genuinely want to hear thoughts and rationale)

[JasonTX]

2020 Bulletin 1:

Play #2:  4/Goal @ B8.  Runner A44 is hit at the B-5 and fumbles, and B54 bats the grounded loose ball at the B-3 back into his own end zone.  A88 sees the loose ball and recovers while the ball is still in the end zone. RULING:  Safety, score 2 points for Team A.  The bat by B54 is a legal bat since he is batting the ball backward (Rule 9-4-1-c), but B54 does add a new impetus to the ball, and is responsible for the balls progress into his own end zone (Rule 8-7-2-b-1).  When A88 recovers the ball, the ball is declared dead based on the 4th down fumble rule (Rule 7-2-2-a Exception 2).  The ruling is a safety because the ball becomes dead by rule in the end zone, and B54 is responsible for the ball being there (Rule 8-5-1-a).  The safety rule and the 4th down fumble rule would seem to be in conflict here, but the spirit and intent of the safety rule is very specific to this play and would supersede the 4th down fumble rule which describes generically how we are to handle recoveries by Team A on 4th down.

[dammitbobby]

So based on this, by the definition of batting, it would have to be very clearly batted (intentionally), not just accidentally/incidentally touched/knocked into the EZ; in that case, (in my scenario) the ball would go to the B4, with a new set of downs for A, correct? 

[JasonTX]

So based on this, by the definition of batting, it would have to be very clearly batted (intentionally), not just accidentally/incidentally touched/knocked into the EZ; in that case, (in my scenario) the ball would go to the B4, with a new set of downs for A, correct?

  Correct.  A muffed ball doesn't change impetus unless the ball is clearly at rest, otherwise, impetus wouldn't change on a muffed ball.

[psv]

This play has always seemed like splitting hairs to me...

1) If A22 recovered it, would it be a TD?

2) I guess the "ball being declared dead by rule" is the hairs they are splitting.... because technically we have  Team A recovering a ball in Team B's end zone and the reason the ball is in the end zone is on Team B.  We normally give those things Touchdowns

[bctgp]

An interesting twist, what if the Team B player bats the loose ball before it strikes the ground. What do you have then?

[JasonTX]

An interesting twist, what if the Team B player bats the loose ball before it strikes the ground. What do you have then?

Still a 4th down fumble.  Bring it back to the spot of the fumble.  No rewards for fumbling forward.

[bctgp]

Correct, because impetus is not imparted on Team B in this scenario, the result of the play is not a safety and 4th down fumble rule applies.