B2 intercepts A's pass at A's 7. When contacted by A1, B2 fumbles the ball which is caught in the air by A2 at his own 4 yard line, while was moving toward his own goal line. A2's momentum carries him into his own end zone, where he falls down.

SAFETY: score two points for B

OR

Daad ball at the spot (4 yard line) where A regained possession

dead ball at the four....momentum...that is my take anyway

For NF, momentum exception applies. A's ball at the 4.

Canadian Ruling:

B's intercepting the pass has broken the continuity of downs. A recovery the fumble is just that - a fumble recovery.

If the official deems that the player's momentum carried him into the EZ, then the fumble recovery is deemed to have occured in the EZ, and (new rule this year), award team A 1D/10 @ A-20.

If the official deemed that the player's momentum did not carry him into the EZ, then score a safety touch to team B.

REPLY: Both rule codes (NF and NCAA) concur that this results in application of the momentum exception. It will be A's ball 1-10 at A's 4. Both codes made the change this season to allow the ME for Team A after a change of possession.

Now the only thing left to bring the codes into complete agreement is for the Fed to apply the momentum exception to <u>recoveries</u> as well as <u>catches/interceptions</u>. That would make the rule complete.

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.

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.

(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! ;-)

I agree that it will be A's ball at the 4, but note that the ball is not "dead" at the four. The ball remains live until A2 is downed in the end zone. This is an important distinction because A2 could have fumbled either in the field of play or end zone and this would have potentially created several other results.