REPLY: That's precisely why I began my post by disclaiming any similarity between my play and the original one. All I was attempting to do was to test both codes' omission of the words <i>by an opponent</i> in their definition of a dead ball by virtue of forward progress and see how people would respond.

Similarly, NF 7-5-6 and 7-5-9 had omitted the word "forward" in those respective rules for years even though virtually all of us knew that it was implicitly there. Only in 2004 did they actually add the word to the rules.

Maybe NF has some words in rule four, but NCAA has some in rule 4 that says the ball becomes dead when a runner is so held that is forward progress is stopped.

I'm sure that they are without a doubt talking about a defensive player that is the person "holding" up the runner and therefore the only way you get forward progress is this way.

Being knocked back by your on player is not a forward progress situation.

REPLY: Actually, Tom, the NF rule (4-2-2a) is almost identical as the NCAA rule (4-1-3a). Neither <u>explicitly</u> says that it must be an <i>opponent</i> holding the runner and stopping his forward progress. But like you, I believe it's implied.

Are we still talking about K hitting R1 who knocks over or into R2? In my mind I see (in the original play) K hitting R1 who knocks R2 from the 2.5 into the endzone and that R2 stumbles backwards before falling over (landing in the EZ) and that he has no control of himself before falling over. If that's the case I'd give FP at the 2.5. But if R2 shows any sign of being in control when he's in the EZ or tries to run of is still upright and capable of running then he's fair game for a safety.

How do you guys rule, then, on a player running laterally at the one, who trips over a lineman (his own teammate) and falls into the endzone?

REPLY: Personally, I'd rule a safety. I would not recognize forward progress based upon him getting his feet tangled up with those of a teammate. JMHO...

But if you insist on holding, than when a runner runs from his EZ and is tackled (pushed; not held!) on own 2 so hard, that he flies 2y into his EN, where the ball becomes dead, you would rule safety. I believe, that when determining FP, opponent´s action should be considered, although it´s not explicit written.

So, in the origin example R-ball on 2.5. This example A-ball on 2. That example with runner being tripped by teammate: safety

Based on how the rule reads (NCAA) yes, I go with a safety not FP.

I would say a safety on your play. (NF)

For those who might be curious about the outcome of the original thread - the rules that ultimately helped resolve the issue were the definition of Force (NF 2-13-2) and the definition of safety (NF 8-5-2a)...

I would say my key is always how did the ball get into the EZ? R1 carried it there. I understand your implying K1's hit caused it...I would go with the safety...I just think it's different if K1 hits R1 directly..then I would say FP 2.5 yard line....

_______________________________________________

cdnRef,
Thats what I was trying say! LOL

REPLY: While Cdnref posted the definition of force and what constitutes a safety, the real issue is whether or not we can rule that forward progress is at work here. If so, the player "carried" a dead ball into the endzone, so 'force' and the idea of a 'safety' would be immaterial. If not, then those definitions would say that the result of the play is a safety. In the original play, there are two questions that need answers:
(1) if the runner's contact with a teammate causes him to fall backward, can forward progress be ruled?
(2) Depending on the answer for the prior question, does it matter if the teammate's contact with the runner is the result of initial contact with an opponent (like dominoes)?