|
(Reminder: thread below discussed using Canadian Amatuer rules.)
Okay then, imagine a case that the ball was sitting on the ground near the Team A end zone and a Team A player tried to jump on the ball and in doing so knocked the ball into the end zone where it was subsequently downed in Team A possession.
In this case would you say that Team A is responsible for putting the ball into their own end zone? You would not invoke the interception rule here would you? This would allow Team A an undue advantage.
So what is the difference between attempting to recover a loose ball and (a) knocking it into the end zone or (b) possessing it just before the end zone and having your momentum carry you in?
The major philosophy behind the safety rule is to determine which team is responsible for providing the impetus for the ball being in the end zone. In the case of a kick or pass, the kicking or passing team is deemed responsible because of the direction of the ball and we choose not to punish players because of their momentum in trying to recieve the ball.
For fumbles, in the majority of cases, their is no clear impetus established when the ball comes loose and so we put the onus on who touched it last before it enters the end zone as the team responsible.
Now their are exceptions where if a player were to fumble the ball forward and a player of the other team merely touches it and in the official's judgement the ball would have entered the end zone even without the touching, then we can still hold the fumbling team responsible for the impetus.
I suppose one could argue that we should have a momentum exception in the case that there is a clear impetus established by a fumbling player (where the ball would have entered the end zone anyway) and a player of the opposing team recovers the fumble and then momentum takes them into the end zone. But currently we do not.
See you tonight JugglingReferee. Don't forget to get the number of your eligible receiver on the LOS! ;-)
|