Fumble through the end zone

[shave-tail]

Here's the play: A is running toward his end zone, B comes from behind and punches the ball out. The result is the ball goes into and through B's end zone. We spot the ball on the 20 and give the ball B. My question is....why should B get the ball? I don't want rules quoted in this post...I already know the rule....I'm looking for a discussion on what was the thought process that would give the ball to B. I think the rule should be some type of penalty on A but A still keeps the ball (delay of game, procedure) basic spot or previous spot. Any other opinions?

[Edited by shave-tail on Oct 22nd, 2005 at 08:56 PM]

[BktBallRef]

Team A last had possession of the ball when it went OOB. Since B did not add a new force to a grounded loose ball, it's a touchback. It's simply a good defensive play by B, so why should they be penalized because A1 couldn't hold onto the ball?

[TXMike]

NCAA
Until 1989, this play would have resulted in a Team B touchback. In 1989, the rule was changed to give B the ball at spot of fumble. Rulemakers thought the touchback was too severe a reward for Team B. It stayed that way till 1998 when it changed back to being a touchback.

I don't know why it was changed back but I do know that any other time the ball becomes dead in the defender's end zone and the attacker is responsible for it being there it is a touchback. Doing it this way for fumbles just eliminates an exception and the more exceptions that are eliminated the better.

[shave-tail]

I guess my main question is: why is A penalized so much? I completely give the knod to B for the defensive play (This actualy happened last night. 76 to 58....my feet still hurt! 23 kick offs!) Given the same defensive play and the ball rolls out at the 1 foot mark, A still keeps the ball and gets the progress. Just a little for to fuel the fire.

[kentref]

Originally posted by shave-tail
Here's the play: A is running toward his end zone, B comes from behind and punches the ball out. The result is the ball goes into and through A's end zone. We spot the ball on the 20 and give the ball B. My question is....why should B get the ball? I don't want rules quoted in this post...I already know the rule....I'm looking for a discussion on what was the thought process that would give the ball to B. I think the rule should be some type of penalty on A but A still keeps the ball (delay of game, procedure) basic spot or previous spot. Any other opinions?

Do you mean the A player is running back towards the end zone A is defending (A's end zone)?

[shave-tail]

kentref,

I don't want to seem dense but I don't understand your question but I'll take a stab. A fumbled through the end zone that would give A a touchdown.

[BktBallRef]

That's B's end zone.

[shave-tail]

Thanks....I got the post corrected....so what's your opinion?

[kentref]

Thanks for the clarification.
I see this as a fumble by A through B's end zone. B is awarded a new series on B's 20.
I'm not seeing why there should be any penalty on A. I suppose there could be a potential argument that B's action of "punching" the ball out of A's grasp should be an "illegal batting" penalty, but that action is legal with today's NFHS rules.
Another argument could be that B is supplying a new force into B's end zone, and that would result in a safety if the ball went through B's end zone.
Two potential arguments - but neither holds water in the context of the 2005 NFHS rules book.

Bottom line. The thought process needs to be that the ball is fumbled by A and it is A's fumble that puts the ball in and through B's end zone.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by shave-tail
Thanks....I got the post corrected....so what's your opinion?

Ah.....I posted the first reply.

[BigFarns]

Originally posted by shave-tail
I guess my main question is: why is A penalized so much?

I see what your question is and since I don't think any of us is on any rules committees we should just kinda trust them. But if I can pull and example out of the vault that makes the rule "feel fair" it would be this.

Anyone remember the Cowboys/Bills Superbowl where Leon Lett was show-boating on the way into the end zone and I think it was Don Beebe that slapped it out of his hand before he crossed. It went through the end zone and Buffalo got the ball after the touchback. That "felt" very fair.

[Texoma_LJ]

For the sake of constructive discussion toward the end of the season.... Let's say B does take an underhand punch at the ball (I am sure wehave all seen this play) but instead of contacting the ball, he contacts player A in the back, arm, or other part of his body. What call is made then??? Is this a punch??? Is player B now ejected for "fighting"? Is this a personal foul? Is this contact just overlooked?

I have seen the ball knocked out, but have never seen a miss and B contact A. I am now wondering what is the proper call in this case.

NF rules please.

[shave-tail]

The play would be a judgement call.....it would all depend if I thought B was making a play on the ball...something like if a defensive back was trying to swat the ball out of the air and contacted the offensive player in the head. To me, the contact is not a deliberate act toward the player but to the ball. And yes Leon Lett deserved what he got on that play....but the rule still seems to be somewhat harsh for A.

[BigFarns]

If y'all would like to throw out some goofy fumble through the zone situations..here's one I remember from an actual game back home.
A is running a long run where he has only one man to beat...30, 20, 15, 10...defender catches him, tackles him and pops the ball loose..ball is rolling around somewhere between the 7 and the 3. (sorry I don't remember it that well, it was 10 years ago or more.) Next closes defender runs in and while trying to pick up the ball accidently boots it out the back of the endzone. The officials called it a safety which I thought was complete BS (and I still do) but reading the rule 8-5-2 it seems they were "correct". Now THAT is a rule I'd argue as unfair...not the touchback for a ball going out on a fumble. Then again...it happened against my team and I was the defender who caught up with the runner. I was so mad that all that running turned into 2 points for the other team. *GROWL*

[Texas Aggie]

I've thought long and hard about this and have come close to changing my mind. My original opinion was that of shave, as I didn't think it was an equitable rule. Now, I'm not so sure. I think there ARE situations where the rule is inequitable, but, for example, in last night's Tenn/Bama game where the Vol runner fumbled out of the end zone, it would truly be inequitable to allow the runner to excuse his fumble and bring the ball back to the spot -- or even back him up with a penalty (that's not a good idea, since it can't be flagged until well after the play). Thus, I don't have a problem with Bama getting the ball in this case on their 20.

There are still two plays that I have a problem with under this rule: the runner on the sideline who fumbles at the two, and it barely breaks into the end zone and goes out the sideline, and a play where possession has changed deep in team A's territory, and team B losses possession out of the end zone (side or end). However, I have come to the conclusion that there is no real way for the rules to distinquish between one of these plays and others where the rule is invoked (like Tenn/Bama above).

For example: this play happened in the NFL, in Chicago, in the mid'80s. Bears punting from inside the 20 (punter on about 10), 4th and at least 10 or more. Punt is blocked, and defense temporarily gains possession of the ball, but being inexperienced ball handlers, fumbles out of the end zone. Bears' ball, first and 10 from their 20 (assuming NCAA rules; using NFL teams only for play example). The Bears do absolutely EVERYTHING wrong (4th down; blocked punt), and end up with the ball, first down. In my opinion, this is still inequitable, but for rules consistency, it has to be that way.