Quote:
Originally posted by ABoselli
What if its slowly rolling parallel to the goalline with no chance of making it to the endzone?
|
REPLY: My previous post was probably not all-inclusive. If the ball is at rest,
nearly at rest, or rolling so that, short of violating the laws of physics, it has absolutely no way of returning to A's end zone, yes...I'd rule it to be B's force and award a touchback. But that's not the play that Mike posted and I was responding to that. In that play, the ball was "taking a funny bounce away from A's goal line." Absent B's muff and left to its own devices, it might just take another funny bounce back into A's end zone. My point is that, regardless of the direction the ball is currently moving, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to B when there is enough inertia in the rolling ball to possibly put it back into A's EZ.
When the ball is rolling loose near A's endzone whom should my judgement disadvantage, B, who muffs it in a scramble to legally recover the loose ball or A whose bad handling put it on the ground in the first place?? Again just my opinion based upon NF 2-13-1 which places the determination of a new force within the covering official's judgement.