Georgia vs. Cincy interception / fumble recovery

[Imperial Stout]

This was the play where Cincy intercepted a pass in their own end zone.  The ball was subsequently fumbled forward out of the end zone, where Cincy recovered at the 3, and the momentum carried the player back towards the end zone.   In this case, the knee was down with the ball a couple of inches from the goalline.

Reading 8-5-1-a exceptions:

It is not a safety if a player between his five-yard line and his goal line:
(a)  intercepts  a  pass  or  fumble;  or  recovers  an  opponent’s  fumble  or  backward pass; or catches or recovers a kick;
(b) his original momentum carries him into his own end zone; and
(c) the ball remains behind his goal line and is declared dead in his team’s possession there

As this was not the opponents fumble, rather a fumble recovery by a player on the team that fumbled, would this mean this momentum exception would not apply?   The rule is explicitly points out opponent's fumble, though just wondering if this was also the intent for this particular situation.

There was no issue, as the player was down prior the ball entering the end zone.  However, if the ball was downed in the end zone, would the result have been a safety?

[ElvisLives]

First, the momentum rule truly does ONLY apply to catches/recoveries of OPPONENT's loose ball (fumble, pass, or kick). No momentum exception for your own team's loose balls. ( )

So, yes, if I understand the situation, had the Cincinnati player recovered the ball clearly in the end zone, the result would have been a safety, because the impetus was from Cincinnati's fumble - not from the original pass that put the ball into the end zone initially. Wasn't always that way. During Adams' days, that would have been a touchback, as the ball got put into the end zone from the field of play by the pass. But Redding changed that shortly after he took over. 

[Covid 22]

Reading was there and he said it would be a touchdown.  When corrected and said touchback.

[TxSkyBolt]

Reading was there and he said it would be a touchdown.  When corrected and said touchback.

And incorrect on both.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Covid 22]

Ok, interception in end zone.  WR wrapped up DB who was not trying to get away (judgement call).  Why not immediately blow it dead & put it on the twenty?

[ElvisLives]

Reading was there and he said it would be a touchdown.  When corrected and said touchback.

Not sure what you are saying, but if Redding (SIC) ‘corrected’ himself, and said touchback, there is something wrong or missing in the situation statement. Check AR 8-5-1-X. With the information provided by Imperial, this AR would apply if B’s fumble from their own end zone travels into the field of play and then is finally recovered by B in their end zone. Safety.
So what’s missing or wrong in the information provided?

Of course, Imperial said the B player actually recovered and was down in the field of play, so 1/10 at that spot. So, this discussion is just a ‘what if’ regarding a final recovery by B in their end zone. Pretty clear it should be a safety.

[ElvisLives]

Ok, interception in end zone.  WR wrapped up DB who was not trying to get away (judgement call).  Why not immediately blow it dead & put it on the twenty?

You said it: Its a judgment (SIC) call. If the BC has truly given up, and it is obvious, certainly - declare the ball dead. But, be sure. Don’t deny B an opportunity to advance the ball, if they might want to do so.

[Covid 22]

The B player recovered the ball around the 11/2 going toward the GL.  Closest official ruled down at 1. Group discussions going on when replay called.  TV replay showed that the ball was very close to th GL when knee hit. TV discussion was what the call would be if overturned and the ball actually crossed GL.  Redding said touchback.  Call stood.

[ElvisLives]

Glad the call stood. Redding would have been wrong, and he wrote the rule. He changed it to be that way. Go figure.

[HLinNC]

he wrote the rule. He changed it to be that way. Go figure.

He is in his late 70's.

[Andrew McCarthy]

This didn’t have anything to do with the rule Rogers rewrote as the ball was recovered in the field of play and that player was taking the possessed ball back into his own end zone.

In the Rogers play the ball is fumbled in the end zone and the loose ball subsequently exits the end zone and enters again, then recovered by the fumbling team in their own end zone.

[JasonTX]

This didn’t have anything to do with the rule Rogers rewrote as the ball was recovered in the field of play and that player was taking the possessed ball back into his own end zone.

If he takes a possessed ball back into his end zone that would yield a safety if the ball subsequently becomes dead there.

[Andrew McCarthy]

If he takes a possessed ball back into his end zone that would yield a safety if the ball subsequently becomes dead there.

Correct. Rogers said just about everything other than safety.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Correct. Rogers said just about everything other than safety.

I'd give the guy a break as he was clearly confused as to whose end zone they were at.  Too much red & black.  They finally got the call correct, and yes it would have been a safety if the ball was actually recovered in the EZ.

[JoeS]

Go to 1:31 mark on this video link to view the play in question.
If B13's knee was not down at B1, the play would have resulted in a Safety.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cRiMMYOopl4