Force

[prab]

Is it possible to determine whether following statement is TRUE or FALSE without knowing whether A1's fumble was or was not grounded prior to B1's muff?

'It is a touchback if A1 fumbles on B's 5-yard line and B1's muff forces the loose ball into B's end zone and out of bounds beyond the end line."

The statement implies, but does not state, that A1's fumble was grounded prior to B1's muff, and therefore constituted a new force.

Full disclosure, I sometimes tend to read such statements as an English professor rather than as an NFHS football official.

[CalhounLJ]

To answer the question, technically it’s impossible. My assumption is that by using “fumble” the author implied a grounded loose ball. That’s the way I would read it


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FLAHL]

No. You need to know whether the fumble was grounded or not in order to correctly rule on this one. There are usually a couple of these on the test every year.

[CalhounLJ]

So if that’s the question, is the answer true or false?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[FLAHL]

So if that’s the question, is the answer true or false?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Yes. 

In FL, when the state discovers that questions like this slipped onto the test, we usually get a note saying that either answer is ok and test grades have been revised. There is usually at least one per year.

[Ump33]

Is it possible to determine whether following statement is TRUE or FALSE without knowing whether A1's fumble was or was not grounded prior to B1's muff?

'It is a touchback if A1 fumbles on B's 5-yard line and B1's muff forces the loose ball into B's end zone and out of bounds beyond the end line."

The statement implies, but does not state, that A1's fumble was grounded prior to B1's muff, and therefore constituted a new force.

Full disclosure, I sometimes tend to read such statements as an English professor rather than as an NFHS football official.

I tend to take the mathematician's point of view, all you need to disprove a "statement" is a single instance of false.  If the fumble is "in flight" (ie not grounded) would make the statement false.

[bama_stripes]

Maybe the use of “fumbles on B’s 5-yard line” rather than “fumbles at B’s 5-yard line” makes it a grounded fumble?   

[FLAHL]

Maybe the use of “fumbles on B’s 5-yard line” rather than “fumbles at B’s 5-yard line” makes it a grounded fumble?   

+1 but please don’t become a test question writer, ok?   

[prab]

Maybe the use of “fumbles on B’s 5-yard line” rather than “fumbles at B’s 5-yard line” makes it a grounded fumble?   

This is good thinking.  Maybe we both have futures as English professors?

[Magician]

The fact the question states "B1's muff forces the loose ball into B's end zone" includes the word "forces" would imply it's a new force. That would make this play a safety so I would answer False.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The fact the question states "B1's muff forces the loose ball into B's end zone" includes the word "forces" would imply it's a new force. That would make this play a safety so I would answer False.

Per rule 2 (2.13.3)  a muff does not impart a new force on a loose ball.

[ncwingman]

Next year, all questions must contain quintuple negatives.

It is not a touchback if A1 doesn't not fumbles on or about B's 5-yard line and B1's muff doesn't force the loose ball not into B's end zone and not out of bounds not not beyond the end line.

[VALJ]

Per rule 2 (2.13.3)  a muff does not impart a new force on a loose ball.

8.5.3.C seems to state otherwise:

--------------------------

ART. 3 . . . It is a touchback when:
c. A fumble is the force, or a muff or bat of a backward pass or a fumble after either has touched the ground is the new force, which sends the ball to or across the opponent's goal line and provided such opponent is in team possession or the ball is out of bounds when it becomes dead on or behind its goal line.

There are times we have to just whether the fumble/kick would have gone into end zone on its own.  If we judge that the ball would have stopped moving shy of the goal line, and the muff is what put it past the goal line, we can well have a touchback.

-----------------------------------

While it references a kick rather than a fumble, Casebook 8.5.3 implies the same:

8.5.3 SITUATION A:

With fourth down and 7 from K's 10, K1 punts from the end zone. The kick is partially blocked and is just barely moving at K's 2-yard line when R1's muff provides a new force which moves the ball into, and out of, the end zone.

RULING: Touchback. Because it was the new force by R1 which caused the ball to go out of K's end zone, the result is a touchback instead of a safety. (2-13-1, 8-5-3b)

[CalhounLJ]

Per rule 2 (2.13.3)  a muff does not impart a new force on a loose ball.

A loose ball IN FLIGHT. A grounded loose ball is another story:
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.

[Magician]

The rule doesn't specifically state this, but the philosophy I've been taught is unless the ball is at rest or nearly at rest don't pick nits trying to make a muff a new force. The initial "flawed play" was the fumble so don't bail out the fumbler in a grounded ball by ruling the muff a new force in most cases.

[ncwingman]

The rule doesn't specifically state this, but the philosophy I've been taught is unless the ball is at rest or nearly at rest don't pick nits trying to make a muff a new force. The initial "flawed play" was the fumble so don't bail out the fumbler in a grounded ball by ruling the muff a new force in most cases.

Philosophically, yes. I'll probably see three fair catch kicks before I see a muff be a new force.

However, if the test question states "B1's muff forces the ball into the end zone"... then, well, that's a new force because the test question said so.

[Magician]

Philosophically, yes. I'll probably see three fair catch kicks before I see a muff be a new force.

However, if the test question states "B1's muff forces the ball into the end zone"... then, well, that's a new force because the test question said so.

I agree with you on that and stated it earlier. I believe because they included the word force they were indicating it was a new force so answer the question as such.

[ucanfindmj]

'It is a touchback if A1 fumbles on B's 5-yard line and B1's muff forces the loose ball into B's end zone and out of bounds beyond the end line."

As it is in the question...  "B1's muff forces..."  I haven't seen them use this as a trick question and tells you that B1 forced the ball oob beyond the End Line.  Hope that helps

[NVFOA_Ump]

The rule doesn't specifically state this, but the philosophy I've been taught is unless the ball is at rest or nearly at rest don't pick nits trying to make a muff a new force. The initial "flawed play" was the fumble so don't bail out the fumbler in a grounded ball by ruling the muff a new force in most cases.

Agreed, and that is what we have always been taught.  Unless in our judgement the loose ball is stopped or virtually stopped and CLEARLY is not going into the end zone on it's own without further contact from a player, then we treat the touching as a muff as defined in the rule 2 definitions.

[Willis]

If B's muff is the new "force" that put the ball in and out of B's endzone, shouldn't that be a safety and not a touchback?  To be a touchback, we'd have to rule that the ball was put into the endzone by an action by A.

[Magician]

If B's muff is the new "force" that put the ball in and out of B's endzone, shouldn't that be a safety and not a touchback?  To be a touchback, we'd have to rule that the ball was put into the endzone by an action by A.

This ball is going into B's end zone (the one they are defending) so it's a safety. If this had happened on the other end of the field it would be a touchback.

[prab]

It seems that the consensus is that in this particular play, B's muff constitutes a new force and would result in a safety.  Therefore, maybe the best guess is to answer the question FALSE.

However, I think that we can all agree that the question could have been asked in a manner that would not require guessing at the writer's intention!

[Ralph Damren]

A muff can't add a new force to an ungrounded fumble = the fumble was grounded.

B forced the fumble back thru it's own end zone = safety.

Test answer = FALSE.

IMHO, questions such as these cause discussions. Discussions sometimes help in getting a better understanding of the rules. Having a better understanding of the rules makes for a better official.

  IMHO, if the ball is bouncing toward the goal line don't  try to guess if the muff added a new force that enabled the ball to reach the end zone...IT DIDN'T. If the ball is at rest OR bouncing away from the goal line...IT DID.   

Many years ago ,when OUR New England Patriots  were  THOSE Boston Patriots , the following occurred:

(1) Pats at their 15;
(2) Pats fumble ;
(3) Bills player tries to field airborne fumble;
(4) ball deflects off Bilkl's player's knee;
(5) ball bounces back thru Pat's EZ;
(6) I yelled to my buddies : "WOW, that's going to be a touchback  !!";
(7)the white hat announced to the frenzied masses : "Because the fumble had not touched the ground, the Patriots were responsible for the ball leaving the end zone and a safety is scored.
(8) I had another beer  .

While the above play might seem unfair, it falls into the same rule as a blocked punt bouncing back thru K's end zone. We all would consider that fair.