Impetus (and A's lack thereof)

[JDM]

From the archives of Rom Gilbert:

4th/14 A6. The snap hits blocking back A44's thigh and rolls forward. B55 bats the ball backward from A's 2. The ball hits B66 on A's 3 and rolls into A's end zone. A4 picks up the ball and punts. The punt is blocked and the ball goes out of A's end zone without entering the field of play.

Ruling:
Touchback. A 1/10 A20. The impetus was imparted by B55's legal backward bat. The impetus imparted by B55's bat would have been expended if A4's punt hit in the field of play. It would then be a safety if the punt went out of bounds in A's end zone.


(Complete Mini Missive attached)


[attachment deleted by admin]

[ElvisLives]

From the archives of Rom Gilbert:

4th/14 A6. The snap hits blocking back A44's thigh and rolls forward. B55 bats the ball backward from A's 2. The ball hits B66 on A's 3 and rolls into A's end zone. A4 picks up the ball and punts. The punt is blocked and the ball goes out of A's end zone without entering the field of play.

Ruling:
Touchback. A 1/10 A20. The impetus was imparted by B55's legal backward bat. The impetus imparted by B55's bat would have been expended if A4's punt hit in the field of play. It would then be a safety if the punt went out of bounds in A's end zone.


(Complete Mini Missive attached)

This is no different than when a defending player intercepts a pass in his own end zone, or catches/recovers an opponent's kick in his own end zone, and then fumbles the ball. If the ball travels directly OB: touchback. Impetus was from the opponent's pass or kick. In the given scenario, the impetus was from the opponent's batting. Since impetus cannot be changed in the end zone, unless the ball travels into the field of play, impetus will remain with the opponent's batting. 
If the ball travels into the field of play, impetus is now from the fumble. Then, if by some means that doesn't change impetus again, it becomes dead in the defending team's possession BEHIND their goal line: safety. The impetus was then with the fumble, so the defending team was responsible for the ball being dead behind their goal line, and in their possession.

[Kalle]

The important thing is to know what caused the ball to enter the end zone the final time before becoming dead there. That impetus may have been imparted in the end zone if the ball then leaves the EZ and returns.

[ElvisLives]

The important thing is to know what caused the ball to enter the end zone the final time before becoming dead there. That impetus may have been imparted in the end zone if the ball then leaves the EZ and returns.

 

[dammitbobby]

OK, I would have gotten this wrong... and I don't understand the rationale. 

8-5-2-a Initial Impetus

ARTICLE 2. a. The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball’s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team.

2-16-1-a Kicking the Ball; Legal and Illegal Kicks
ARTICLE 1. a. Kicking the ball is intentionally striking the ball with the knee, lower leg or foot.
b. A legal kick is a punt, drop kick or place kick made according to the rules by a player of Team A before a change of team possession. Kicking the ball in any other manner is illegal (A.R. 6-1-2-I).
c. Any free kick or scrimmage kick continues to be a kick until it is caught or recovered by a player or becomes dead.

I'm not understanding that since a kick is a kick is a kick, why that isn't considered new impetus, as I understand it from 8-5-2-a?

[ElvisLives]

OK, I would have gotten this wrong... and I don't understand the rationale. 

8-5-2-a Initial Impetus

ARTICLE 2. a. The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball’s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team.

2-16-1-a Kicking the Ball; Legal and Illegal Kicks
ARTICLE 1. a. Kicking the ball is intentionally striking the ball with the knee, lower leg or foot.
b. A legal kick is a punt, drop kick or place kick made according to the rules by a player of Team A before a change of team possession. Kicking the ball in any other manner is illegal (A.R. 6-1-2-I).
c. Any free kick or scrimmage kick continues to be a kick until it is caught or recovered by a player or becomes dead.

I'm not understanding that since a kick is a kick is a kick, why that isn't considered new impetus, as I understand it from 8-5-2-a?

Impetus is what causes the ball to travel from the field of play into the end zone, even if that impetus is imparted on the ball while it is in the end zone. This is easy enough to envision when the ball is fumbled, passed, kicked or batted in the field of play, then travels across the goal line where it becomes dead. However, it may be a little harder to envision a ball getting fumbled, passed, kicked, or batted while in the end zone, and then it travels into the field of play, then returns over the goal line into the end zone, where it becomes dead. But that is what this scenario offers. The ball was already in the end zone from the batting by Team B in the field of play. Had the ball stayed behind the goal line and become dead, even after A4's kick, the impetus would have been from the batting, and the result would have been a touchback.
Impetus on the ball was still with the batting until the ball traveled into the field of play. Then, when it returned into the end zone, the kicking of the ball is what caused it to travel from the field of play, back into the end zone where it became dead. Thus, the impetus was from the kick.

To reinforce this concept, if a punter receives the snap in the end zone, at that moment, impetus is with the snap. Even when he kicks the ball, impetus is with the snap, until we know what happens with the kicked ball. If it goes directly OB in the end zone, the result is a safety, but not because of the kick, itself. It is because Team A put the ball into the end zone from the field of play with the snap, and then the ball became dead there. Impetus remained with the snap.
By the same token, when Team A punts the ball, and a Team B players catches the ball in the end zone, then, while still in the end zone, throws a backward pass out of bounds behind the goal line, that's just a touchback, because Team A is responsible for the ball being behind B's goal line (impetus is with the kick), where it became dead.

[dammitbobby]

Impetus is what causes the ball to travel from the field of play into the end zone, even if that impetus is imparted on the ball while it is in the end zone. This is easy enough to envision when the ball is fumbled, passed, kicked or batted in the field of play, then travels across the goal line where it becomes dead. However, it may be a little harder to envision a ball getting fumbled, passed, kicked, or batted while in the end zone, and then it travels into the field of play, then returns over the goal line into the end zone, where it becomes dead. But that is what this scenario offers. The ball was already in the end zone from the batting by Team B in the field of play. Had the ball stayed behind the goal line and become dead, even after A4's kick, the impetus would have been from the batting, and the result would have been a touchback.
Impetus on the ball was still with the batting until the ball traveled into the field of play. Then, when it returned into the end zone, the kicking of the ball is what caused it to travel from the field of play, back into the end zone where it became dead. Thus, the impetus was from the kick.

To reinforce this concept, if a punter receives the snap in the end zone, at that moment, impetus is with the snap. Even when he kicks the ball, impetus is with the snap, until we know what happens with the kicked ball. If it goes directly OB in the end zone, the result is a safety, but not because of the kick, itself. It is because Team A put the ball into the end zone from the field of play with the snap, and then the ball became dead there. Impetus remained with the snap.
By the same token, when Team A punts the ball, and a Team B players catches the ball in the end zone, then, while still in the end zone, throws a backward pass out of bounds behind the goal line, that's just a touchback, because Team A is responsible for the ball being behind B's goal line (impetus is with the kick), where it became dead.

This is where it clicked, thanks.

[JDM]

This is no different than when a defending player intercepts a pass in his own end zone, or catches/recovers an opponent's kick in his own end zone, and then fumbles the ball. If the ball travels directly OB: touchback. Impetus was from the opponent's pass or kick. In the given scenario, the impetus was from the opponent's batting. Since impetus cannot be changed in the end zone, unless the ball travels into the field of play, impetus will remain with the opponent's batting. 
If the ball travels into the field of play, impetus is now from the fumble. Then, if by some means that doesn't change impetus again, it becomes dead in the defending team's possession BEHIND their goal line: safety. The impetus was then with the fumble, so the defending team was responsible for the ball being dead behind their goal line, and in their possession.

IMO, the question infers the kick was blocked in the EZ but does not specifically state that. Had the question done so, removing all doubt it was not possibly blocked at the A-1 for example, the ruling would be more cut & dried. Does that make sense?

[ElvisLives]

IMO, the question infers the kick was blocked in the EZ but does not specifically state that. Had the question done so, removing all doubt it was not possibly blocked at the A-1 for example, the ruling would be more cut & dried. Does that make sense?

You make a valid technical point. It is certainly possible for the ball to be kicked from behind A's goal line, then blocked in the field of play, however, remote that possibility might be.

[JDM]

You make a valid technical point. It is certainly possible for the ball to be kicked from behind A's goal line, then blocked in the field of play, however, remote that possibility might be.

Those odds are greater than a last wing being available at the PB buffet at the end of the game. Just one man's opinion...

[ElvisLives]

Those odds are greater than a last wing being available at the PB buffet at the end of the game. Just one man's opinion...

I will give you that...

[JDM]

Uno mas to perhaps support the previous play's ruling of TB. Once again pulled from the archives of Rom Gilbert's Pigskin Page - this one is from Mini Missive #8 2010 (attached):

4th and 14 on A's 6. The snap hits blocking back A44's thigh and rolls forward. B55 bats the ball backward from A's 2. The ball hits B66 on A's 3 and rolls into A's end zone. A4 picks up the ball and punts. The ball hits on A's 16 and rolls back into and out of A's end zone.

Ruling:
Safety. Team B scores two points. The impetus was imparted by A4's punt. The impetus imparted by B55's bat was expended when A4's punt hit in the field of play. Touchback if A4's punt is blocked and the ball goes out of A's end zone without entering the field of play.

Note the difference between play 1 and this play is the fact the kick DOES land in the FOP and becomes dead behind A's EZ.

I don't want to "beat a dead horse". However there are knowledgeable officials whom I respect who feel the original play results in a Safety.



[attachment deleted by admin]