Interception Touchback/Safety question

[FootballRef05]

Sorry Guys, I don't know where I got kick from either, I guess working and posting at the same time got the best of me today. My apologies for the confusion.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by FootballRef05

Sorry Guys, I don't know where I got kick from either, I guess working and posting at the same time got the best of me today. My apologies for the confusion.

REPLY: Then I guess you'll have to stop working!

Back to the original play, it sounds like this should have been ruled a safety. If he was able to run laterally (parallel to the goal line), any subsequent movement into his endzone would be of his own accord. The call should never have been a touchback if the post properly represented the play.

And Jason...FYI, the Fed momentum rule is pretty much identical to the NCAA rule.

[Smiley]

What we need to remember is that the "momentum rule" is actually an exception to the rule that a safety results when the ball is carried into one's own end zone and subsequently becomes dead there. Therefore, if it is judged that momentum didn't cause the player to carry the ball into the endzone, its a safety. No way to have a touchback.

[bossman72]

Is the momentum rule different on a kickoff or punt play?

[MJT]

Originally Posted by bossman72

Is the momentum rule different on a kickoff or punt play?

Nope. Works the same way. I usually will mention how it works to the deep receivers on the first KO, and also mention how a muff will be dead when it breaks the plane.

[bossman72]

is the NCAA momentum rule different? i ask this because i've seen several times where momentum has taken a player from the field of play to the endzone, the player takes a knee, and the ball is brought out to the 20...

[MJT]

Originally Posted by bossman72

is the NCAA momentum rule different? i ask this because i've seen several times where momentum has taken a player from the field of play to the endzone, the player takes a knee, and the ball is brought out to the 20...

I don't think you saw that happen. He must have not "truely" gained possession until he was in the EZ. That part of the momentum exception is the same for NF and NCAA. There is a difference when it comes to a foul that occurs and then the ball is fumbled forward out of the EZ, but that is another situation.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Then I guess you'll have to stop working!

Back to the original play, it sounds like this should have been ruled a safety. If he was able to run laterally (parallel to the goal line), any subsequent movement into his endzone would be of his own accord. The call should never have been a touchback if the post properly represented the play.

And Jason...FYI, the Fed momentum rule is pretty much identical to the NCAA rule.

If he runs laterally along the two for several steps before going into the EZ on his own, I have a safety. You might have to see it or be there. What about a situation where he's "tightroping"? I would look at this like he didn't have his balance and I might give him the benefit of the doubt and give him the ball at the two, again I'd have to see it. If a defender pushes him into the EZ then do you have forward progress at the two or a TB?

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by kdf5

If he runs laterally along the two for several steps before going into the EZ on his own, I have a safety. You might have to see it or be there. What about a situation where he's "tightroping"? I would look at this like he didn't have his balance and I might give him the benefit of the doubt and give him the ball at the two, again I'd have to see it. If a defender pushes him into the EZ then do you have forward progress at the two or a TB?

REPLY: I completely lost sight of the piece of the original post that said "...his momentum or that of the other player carries him into the endzone." If that "other player" was an opponent, I agree with kdf5 that you'll have a forward progress spot outside the endzone. In such a case, it would be an extremely hard sell to say 'touchback.' Actually, the original post makes it pretty clear that the momentum exception is off the table since the runner was able to take a few steps parallel to the goal line at his own 2. So even though the original post mentions that "his momentum...carries him into the endzone," we're no longer talking the momentum exception, but rather a situation where he enters his end zone of his own accord. Should the ball then become dead there in his possession, the result of the play is a safety as most have said.