The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 23, 2005, 04:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Omaha, Nebraska
Posts: 260
Last play of the 2nd quarter last Friday night.

A completes a swing pass near the left sideline to A25 who is running down the left sideline until B13 catches up to him at B's 5 yd line. As A25 is being tackled by B13, he tosses the ball backwards to A40 who is trailing the play. The ball hits B13 in the shoulder pad and bounces forward into the end zone. A40 recovers the ball in B's end zone for a TD.

B's coaches (40 yards away on the opposite sideline) were screaming for a "forward" pitch. Our Back Judge was in perfect position at the goal line and could clearly see that the ball was tossed backwards by A25 before it hit B13.

Had the ball been recovered (in B's end zone) by B13, what would you have had?
__________________
kentref
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 23, 2005, 04:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Ten Mile, Tn
Posts: 236
Touchback. The force was the backwards pass. There can not be a new force on a backwards pass that has not been grounded.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Oct 23, 2005, 05:58pm
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
Most definitely a TB. Now if the BWP was grounded, you would have to decided if it was a new force or not.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2005, 02:32pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 455
I'll need to check my book, but I believe I disagree. There cannot be a new force on a kick before it is grounded, but I don't believe there's such a provision for a backwards pass... which makes this a judgement call.

If the pitch was fairly forceful, then I'll have a touchback. If the pitch was easy and hit the defender charging toward his own end zone, I have a new force supplied by B, and therefore a safety when the ball is recovered by B in their endzone.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2005, 02:40pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 97
Quote:
Originally posted by The Roamin' Umpire
I'll need to check my book, but I believe I disagree. There cannot be a new force on a kick before it is grounded, but I don't believe there's such a provision for a backwards pass... which makes this a judgement call.

If the pitch was fairly forceful, then I'll have a touchback. If the pitch was easy and hit the defender charging toward his own end zone, I have a new force supplied by B, and therefore a safety when the ball is recovered by B in their endzone.
Initial force results from a carry, fumble, kick pass or snap. So in this case, force can't be attributed to B. After a backward pass...has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, illegal kick or muff. The only one here that would even come close here to having B give it a new force is the muff and that means he'd have to try unsuccessfully to gain possession which is a far cry from having a lateral bounce off his shoulder pad.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2005, 06:28pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Posts: 35
So, if the bounce off the B shoulderpad put the ball in the endzone, then it is a touchback. If B attempted to secure possession of the ball and muffed it before it went into the endzone, then it would be a safety. Correct?
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Oct 24, 2005, 07:41pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally posted by tempestos
So, if the bounce off the B shoulderpad put the ball in the endzone, then it is a touchback. If B attempted to secure possession of the ball and muffed it before it went into the endzone, then it would be a safety. Correct?
Not exactly. It really all depends on whether the ball is grounded or in flight. A new force can not be added to a backward pass if the ball is in flight. A new force can be added to a backward pass if the ball has been grounded. Check out Rule 8-5-1.

So, in your situation...

"If B attempted to secure possession of the ball and muffed it before it went into the endzone,"

...we would have a touchback if B muffed the ball in flight (A's force, the BW pass, put the ball in the EZ) and a safety if B muffed a grounded backward pass (B's new force put the ball in the EZ). The prior statement is true only if B is the team in possession in the end zone at the end of the down or the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone.

[Edited by Kirby on Oct 24th, 2005 at 08:59 PM]
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 25, 2005, 07:25am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 97
And remember, a new force MAY be added. Doesn't say that it will be added. You have to judge if the ball was going into the EZ with or without the new force. Even if B muffs the grounded backward pass it doesn't mean it's a safety if you judge that the ball would have gone in the EZ without the muff.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 25, 2005, 12:25pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally posted by schwinn
And remember, a new force MAY be added. Doesn't say that it will be added. You have to judge if the ball was going into the EZ with or without the new force. Even if B muffs the grounded backward pass it doesn't mean it's a safety if you judge that the ball would have gone in the EZ without the muff.
Could you provide a casebook or rule book reference for this?
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Oct 25, 2005, 02:00pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 97
From the 2004 casebook.

K1's punt is blocked on K's 5 yd line and the ball is slowly rolling near the goal line. R1 attempts to recover and just barely touches the ball. The ball then rolls into the EZ where K2 falls on it. Ruling: the covering official will have to judge whether or not a new force resulted from R1's touch. The covering official must decide whether the original force wsa such that the ball could have gone into the EZ regardless of the muff.

2-13-1 ... a new force MAY result...
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Wed Oct 26, 2005, 03:29pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Posts: 108
Quote:
Originally posted by schwinn
From the 2004 casebook.

K1's punt is blocked on K's 5 yd line and the ball is slowly rolling near the goal line. R1 attempts to recover and just barely touches the ball. The ball then rolls into the EZ where K2 falls on it. Ruling: the covering official will have to judge whether or not a new force resulted from R1's touch. The covering official must decide whether the original force wsa such that the ball could have gone into the EZ regardless of the muff.

2-13-1 ... a new force MAY result...
Thank you for the case reference. I always thought if a muff, bat, or kick of a grounded ball occurred, that was considered the force that put the ball in the end zone. I never knew they wanted us to use our judgement in this type of scenario....but now that I know that, I like it!

Thanks for your help with this one, Schwinn.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:42am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1