I agree the momentum exception should apply in this case, even though the language of the rules don't support it.

The momentum exception as stated applies only to loose balls caught or recovered.

Catch: The act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight...

Recovery: ...is gaining possession of a live ball after it strikes the ground. ...

The B player in this play did niether, so the momentum rule does not apply in this narrow case. However, we can all pretty much agree he did gain possession of a fumble.

It doesn't say catch (so the definition of catch is irrelevant), it says intercept or recover. So, if it's the wording of the definition of recover that is causing you problems, what is to say that in the case of an airborne fumble or a case like the OP, that the B player did not "intercept" the fumble.

I truly think you are picking nits here to say, even technically, that this play would not qualify for the momentum exception.

Mcrowder, I may be picking nits as you say, but intercepting is catching. It means to catch an opponent's pass or fumble.

As I said, I would use the momentum excetion to rule on this play, even though the letter of the exception, and related definitions do not support this specific play scenario. Perhaps we need a definition that says stealing the ball is the same as recovering a fumble, and the momentum exception could be edited to incldue this act.

2-18: Fumble: a fumble is any loss of player possession other than by handing, passing or legal kick.

That about covers is don't you think? Ball stolen equals loss of player possession and therefore is a fumble. I agree momentum can apply in this case.

What's getting him here is the word "recover", which does include in its definition the word "grounded".

Good question, and a great big grey area. I like the idea that the spirit of the rule dictates we give the exception.

REPLY: I'm with kdf5 and the others on this one. Apply the momentum exception even though the fumble was neither 'caught' or 'recovered.' Just a slight hole in the wording of the exception, but well within the spirit of the rule.