Crazy play! force, muffing, 80 yd screwups and more

[BigGref]

this was kind of our thought but then we thought that this play/foul (touchback) it was very unfair; R blocked the ball, muffed it around to and through the EZ and they are penalized, giving K the ball back doesn't make sense, they screwed up they lost 30 yds on the play, on 4th down, they didn't influence the ball at all, and then they get REWARDED?? with the ball 1st and 10? would the fact that K had not advanced past there line to gain even after the TB have an effect, thus making it Rs ball at Ks 20? Ideas

[BigGref]

I've been looking closely at the casebook and found that our play would most likely have resulted in a TB (yet still unfair to R IMO).
IN casebook 8.5.3 sit A with 4th and 7 from K's 10. K1's punt from EZ. The kick is partially blocked and barely moving at K's 2 when R's muff provides a new force which moves the ball into, and out of, the EZ Ruling: TB. Because it was the new force by R1 which caused the ball to go out of K's EZ, the result is a TB instead of safety (sites 2.13.1;8.5.3b)

The safety argument could be argued though sit different than previous discussed with... 8.5.2 sit B; with 4th and 3 from his own 10 yd line the scrimmage kick by k1 is blocked so that it REBOUNDS INTO k's endzone and (a)is muffed OOB in the EZ by either K or R or (b)is simmultaneously recovered in the EZ by K2 and R1 RULING in (a)safety, (b) touchdown

somewhere in the middle...8.5.2 sit C:K1's punt is blocked on K's 5 yd ln. and the ball is slowly rolling near the goal line. R1 attempts to recover and just barely touches the ball.The ball then rolls into the EZ where K2 falls on it. RULING: the covering official will have to judge whether or not a new force resulted from R1's touch. The official must decide whether the original force was such that the ball could have gone into the EZ regardless of the muff. If the official has doubt, he will rule that the force was supplied by the kick, thus resulting in a safety. If the official rules R1 supplied the force, it is a touchback.

so here are some additional casebook cases. input if you would like thanks.

[BulldogMcC]

Originally posted by BigGref
this was kind of our thought but then we thought that this play/foul (touchback) it was very unfair; R blocked the ball, muffed it around to and through the EZ and they are penalized, giving K the ball back doesn't make sense, they screwed up they lost 30 yds on the play, on 4th down, they didn't influence the ball at all, and then they get REWARDED?? with the ball 1st and 10? would the fact that K had not advanced past there line to gain even after the TB have an effect, thus making it Rs ball at Ks 20? Ideas

But R made a mistake, although it was not a penalty, they caused the ball to become dead not in player possession behind their opponents goal line. The result of that mistake is their opponent gets the ball at their own 20. It is not a penalty, merely a result for an action. That action is the only action that has meaning. K kicks the ball, R blocks in or behind the neutral zone and it is ignored, R muffs a grounded kick supplying a new force to the ball which causes it to go into K's endzone where it becomes dead not in player possession. The only thing that matters is the part that starts "...supplying a new force..." R caused that to happen, K's bakk 1st and 10 at their own 20. If K had pitched it back and it was rolling around at the five, if R had intercepted it and run it back, fumbled and the ball was rolling around at the 5, or any other reason a live ball was rolling around at the 5, R's muff supplied a new force which caused the ball to go behind K's goal line where it became dead not in player possession.

5-1-1 Awards first down for the team to get the ball in play after a touchback.
8-5-4 Defines the team to get the ball after a touchback as the team whose goal line was involved.