Quote:
Originally posted by wwcfoa43
On the Canadian ruling above by my crewmate (all Canadian officials must know each other, eh?):
There is rules support for what the US guys call the "momentum exception" for passes and for receiving a kicked ball.
However, there is no rule support for a fumble recovery.
A safety touch occurs when "...as a result of the ball having been carried, passed or kicked into the end zone by the team scored against."
For passing, I think the momentum exception is justified because the intercepting team did not "pass" the ball into their end zone. For receiving a kick, ditto, because they receiving team did not do the kicking.
However, in my mind for getting a fumble recovering, if it is the player's momentum that carries the ball into the end zone, they are out luck and a safety should result because they would have carried it there. Next time, they should avoid heading in the direction.
|
Is this one "my bad"? I was thinking about a different article. I apologize.
At least I now know how to see if you're reading or not. LOL
#85 (although almost numerically twice as large as 43, it appears on this play to be only half as smart.)
I actually do not agree with awarding a safety touch. I think that momentum should apply. However, having a friend who almost has her international rugby ticket, we often talk history of Canadian football and it's relationship to rugby. I've since learned that rugby does not allow for this momentum, and this is probably why Cdn football doesn't either.
Quote:
|
...they are out luck and a safety should result because they would have carried it there. Next time, they should avoid heading in the direction. [/B]
|
I don't think it's fair to a player to say that he would have carried it there. He may not have. We should allow him the opportunity to do whatever with the ball.