K1 scrimmage kick is blocked on K's 5-yard line and is rolling away from the near goal line when R1 muffs the ball in K's end zone. K2 recovers the ball and is downed in the end zone. Ruling:

Safety

Maybe, maybe not.

If R provides a new force that puts the ball in the end zone, it's a touchback when K recovers and is tackled there.

If there is no new force, it's a safety.

But it sounds like the ball is rolling away from the goal line. That would require a new force to put it in the EZ. Sounds like a touchback to me.

Agreed, need more details.

More details? that is what happened on the play, there isn't anymore details...

If I am reading the play correctly, the ball was rolling <b>away from the goal line</b> so R's force would be a new force and the one which put the ball into the EZ, so a touchback.

Agree with MJT. What if R recovered or is ball dead when breaks the plane of the goal line?

Sounds like K provided the force that put the ball into the endzone, therefore it is a safety.

Forksref, rule 2-13-2 says "responsibility for forcing the ball from the field of play across a goal line is attributed to the player who carries, snaps, passes, fumbles, or kicks the ball, <b>unless a new force is applied to either a backwards pass, kick, or fumble that has been grounded.</b>

We have a grounded kick, which is rolling "away" from the EZ and then is muffed by R1 back into the EZ. This is definitely a "new force" by R1, thus the touchback.

Guys,

almost word for word in the casebook page 89 10.5.5 Sit B.
Both MJT and BktBallRef picked up on it. When I first read it I thought safety too because the kick did not end. But according to the casebook if a "new force" such as a muff is put on the ball now R has put the ball in the EZ and not K! Making it a TB...That is why I wanted to post this...



10.5.5 SITUATION B: K1's scrimmage kick is blocked on K's 5-yard line and is rolling away from the nearer goal line when R1 muffs the ball into K's end zone. K2 recovers the ball and attempts to advance, but is downed in the end zone. During K2's run: (a) R1 holds K3 in the end zone; or (b) K3 holds R1 in the end zone. RULING: In (a), it is a touchback and the basic spot is the 20-yard line. In (b), since the foul is in the end zone, it is a safety.

REPLY: Ball remains alive if it returns back behind K's goal line. Also, if R recovered, it's a TD (player possession of a live ball in the opponent's end zone.

RE
 

Also think you guys are reading too much into the direction of the ball rolling. That really is insignificant. Think about had the punt been blocked. Well it's moving away from the near goal line until it gets blocked toward the goal line. This is NOT considered a new force.

Basically that ball has to be lying still or virtually still for it to be considered a new force by R. If I read it right that it was still rolling, it is still K's force that put it in the end zone, hence a safety.

Re: RE
 

REPLY: When a kick is blocked, the change of direction is not material only because you can't impart a new force to a kick in flight. (NF 2-13-3) It has nothing at all to do with direction.

And the ball doesn't need to be lying still or nearly so (at least in Federation ball) to rule a new force. That used to be true some years ago, but the rule was changed.

I don't know. There's been a whole lot of discussion at our local association meetings about what constitutes a new force. We've had a lot of guys who argue both ways on this.

That's funny, I was just talking to Grant about this play because it happened in one of my games. Here is a caseplay that covers it:

8.5.3 SITUATION A: With fourth down and 7 from K's 10, K1 punts from the end zone. The kick is partially blocked and is just barely moving at K's 2-yard line when R1's muff provides a new force which moves the ball into, and out of, the end zone. RULING: Touchback. Because it was the new force by R1 which caused the ball to go out of K's end zone, the result is a touchback instead of a safety. (2-13-1;8-5-3b)