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)

To me, anything which makes the ball move faster or in a different direction is a new force, atleast that's how I read the definition of force. When I was talking to Grant he mentioned that NCAA doesn't have force but they have impetus which I believe could make the ruling differnet.

REPLY: The rule used to read that a new force could be added to a ball at rest or nearly at rest. But they changed that some time ago. I'll check when they did that when I get home and post the "before" and "after" rules.

Note: In NCAA, a new force (they call it "impetus") can be imparted by a bat or an illegal kick. Any other contact (e.g. a muff) can impart a new impetus only when the ball has come to rest.

rules or laws??
 

hey guys,
This is a definite new force...if the ball is rolling away from the goal line then all of a sudden is behind the goal line a new force was applied...If not then we have broken a much higher set of laws....the laws of physics say a new force was applied, and laws always trump rules LOL :D

By that logic, ANY contact with the ball, however small, would constitute a NEW force. What are the rules in FED around this (what do those rules actually say)? I'm an NCAA guy trying to understand this.

Okay, I'm a newbie here, touchback okay I understand that but who puts ball in play at 20? Is it 1/10 K because they have now made it past Line to Gain? or is it 1/10 for R from the 20 going in?

Help me clarify, thanks.

The fed rules avoid that problem by telling us when to ignore mr Newton. It says that force is never a factor on kicks into R's endzone. If in this play R muffed the ball at their 5 yard line and it was rolling on the ground away from their goal line, at which point r2 came along and tried to cover it, and knocked it into the endzone, where R 3 recovered it, we have a Touchback as opposed to a safety, because force is never a factor on kicks into r's endzone....and kicks into R's endzone are always a touchback

But the original post was
putting ball back into K's endzone?

RE
 

We're talking about K's endzone

Read the casebook play I posted, it is this exact scenario, is it not?

Fed rules say a muff of a grounded scrimmage kick can provide a new force and a muff is defined (loosely) as an unsuccessful attempt to gain possession.

your game play is very close to mine. Mine said the 5 yd and yours said the 1 t=yard line. but either way it is the same. TB K 1-10 at K 20

DEF
 

SECTION 13 FORCE
ART. 1 . . . Force is the result of energy exerted by a player which provides movement of the ball. The term force is used only in connection with the goal line and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end zone. Initial force results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap. After a backward pass, fumble or kick has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff.
ART. 2 . . . 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, unless a new force is applied to either a backward pass, kick or fumble that has been grounded.

ART. 3 . . . The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not considered a new force.
ART. 4 . . . Force is not a factor:

a. On kicks going into R's end zone, since these kicks are always a touchback regardless of who supplied the force.
b. When a backward pass or fumble is declared dead in the end zone of the opponent of the player who passed or fumbled, with no player possession.

I think I agree, but here is another little nugget...what if the LTG was the 30??

REPLY: See tpaul's post (10/3 5:46pm) The Fed rules say that a new force <u><i>may</i></u> be added. It's solely in the covering official's judgement to determine if the contact with the ball was sufficient to put the ball across the goal line and that there was no reasonable expectation that it could have gotten there without the contact. As a counter-example, A fumbles at his own 5. Ball is rolling backwards toward A's goal line. B muffs the ball across the goal line where A recovers...or it rolls OOB behind the goal line. My ruling: Safety. I would not rule a new force if the ball was rolling toward A's goal line when B muffs it.