I grabbed this from another board because there was a good discussion about it there.

R1 receives a free kick on his 1 yard line. He muffs the kick forward to the 2 1/2. K1 is coming hard. R1 picks up the ball at the 2 1/2. R3 is in front of R1 at the 4 yard line. K1 hits R3 so hard that he goes back and hits R1 after he has just picked up the ball and gets knocked back into the endzone. R1 attempts to run the ball out of the endzone and is tackled in the endzone.

So, safety, touchback, forward progress, something else? Make sure you state NF or NCAA (I don't know if there would be a difference)

His forward progress was stopped at the 1, but did he "on his own" instead of being downed try to run it out of the EZ? If so, it would be a safety, just as if he on his own changed his direction on the field and circled back into the EZ and was tackled. Now if after being knocked back into the EZ, he was tackled immediately, I think you have the ball at the 1, where forward progress was stopped. This is a tough one, cuz if soon as he is stopped in the EZ if he is not contacted by a defender, I'd say he must get out of the EZ to avoid a safety.

I agree w/ MJT. If he hadn't tried to run the ball out of the EZ I probably would have ruled progress but he attempted to run out of the EZ so he's responsible for the ball becoming dead there.

Canadian Philosophy
 

My understanding of the Canadian amateur game is that FP was the 2½. If B1 tries to exit the EZ on his own, then being tackled in the EZ results in a safety. If he does not try to exit and is tackled in the EZ, I think you give progress to the 2½.

I agree with the previous posts except that we should spot forward progress at the 2 1/2, like JR says. What the referee must rule on is whether R1 reestablished himself in the endzone - if so, he must get out on his own, but if not, it's FP. Put this whole play at the 50 and it's clear... so rule on this like it was at the 50.

You're right on the forward progress being at the 2 1/2, not the 1.

If he was on the 2.5 and got knocked down by the original hit by B and was in the EZ, I would give him FP on the 2.5. If he's still standing in the EZ then tries to run the ball out and is downed, I have a safety.

REPLY: As described, I don't see how this could be anything but a safety. Even if he fell once in the endzone, I would still rule a safety. I don't believe that his being contacted by his teammate and knocked backwards would allow you to rule that forward progress had been stopped outside the endzone. Just my $.02

Interesting Q.
I believe FP should be used, as K1´s run was stopped by opposing team´s action (even it was through his own teammate). Similar question would be "incomplete sack" where QB is tackled on 2.5, driven back to -3, but not downed (and action not whistled), QB escapes and tries to run out of the endzone (well, if he escapes on his own, that he has to), but is downed in the EZ. Ruling should be safety. Wouldn´t he escape, ruling would be next down on 2.5

But Bob, if you look at the definition of forward progress, it does not mention that the progress is stopped by an opponent. That is why I believe it would be at the 2 1/2

yes since he tried to exit under his own power out of the endzone then it should be a safety touch.

If a back ran to the wrong hole, ran into a pulling guard behind the line of scrimmage, stumbled back for 3 yards and fell, where would you mark the ball? I believe you'd put it at the spot where he was down, not where he ran into the guard.

Using this logic I'd rule this play a safety in either case.

waltjp, yes, but this is another story, I guess. May be, this will be discribted in approved rulings for 2005:-)

REPLY: Monte...I know this is a different scenario, but I'm trying to address the rationale you gave for forward progress, i.e. the wording of NF 4-2-2a and NCAA 4-1-3a, and possibly poke some holes. I realize that neither code explicity says that the progress must be stopped by an <i>opponent</i>, but... <b>PLAY:</b> B3 intercepts A's pass in his endzone. He begins to run it out. He's at B's 1 where his teammate (wanting the TB) shoves him back into the EZ where he falls. You have...?

I think I would have a hard time justifying a safety anyway, as his FP was to the 1, and who tackled him is not really relevant (say he was running laterally at the one, tripped over his own guy, and fell into the EZ - you give him the ball at the 1).

But even if you can convince me that the above is wrong, there is STILL a difference between your own player pushing you on his own volition and the DEFENDER pushing your own player into you.

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)?