Momentum question

[andy1033]

Should be a bean bag at the 2. Looks like you got it right

[SouthGARef]

Without looking at the rulebooks:

Wouldn't this be a safety? I thought one of the provisions for the momentum exception was that it was a grounded fumble? Since this is not a grounded fumble, the exception would not apply and you'd have to call this a safety...

[Smiley]

Nope the word grounded is not in the exception to 8.5.2a. You may be thinking of what constitutes a new force. In this case, the force is clearly the B player carrying the "recovered fumble" into the endzone.

[SouthGARef]

Originally Posted by Smiley

Nope the word grounded is not in the exception to 8.5.2a. You may be thinking of what constitutes a new force. In this case, the force is clearly the B player carrying the "recovered fumble" into the endzone.

Alrighty then. I like being wrong. I learn more that way.

[Rick KY]

The momentum rule applies to catching or recovering a pass, fumble or kick. Is stealing the ball away the same as recovering or catching? Fumbling is loss of possession by other than handing, kicking or passing. Is stealing the ball the same as handing? If you determine this is a fumble, then I guess momentum applies. If you rule it is handing, then momentum would not apply.

[Smiley]

The definition of fumble is losing player possession. I'd say that happened. Definition of recovery is gaining possession of a live ball after it strikes the ground. Hmmm. Maybe we didn't have a recovery and therefore the momentum exception doesn't apply.

[Mike L]

When was the ball ever loose so you could apply the momentum rule? I suppose you could claim there is a fraction of a second in the transfer when nobody really has possession, but that's slicing it awfully thin and you might even get away with the call of applying the momentum rule. Unfortunately, I really think this may be one of those instances not covered well in the rules, like so many we've had before, where one team seems to get screwed if you call it by the letter.

[mcrowder]

Originally Posted by Mike L

When was the ball ever loose so you could apply the momentum rule? I suppose you could claim there is a fraction of a second in the transfer when nobody really has possession, but that's slicing it awfully thin and you might even get away with the call of applying the momentum rule. Unfortunately, I really think this may be one of those instances not covered well in the rules, like so many we've had before, where one team seems to get screwed if you call it by the letter.

Heck, if you're making decisions based on that fraction of a second, I'd say it's probably more accurate to say that there was a fraction of a second where there was SIMULTANEOUS possession, which means the fumble never happened.

[Fedex]

Just curious. Since this is a situation that isn't well covered by the rules (since the ball wasn't grounded), why wouldn't you use some common sense in your interpretation of the spirit of the rule. The momentum exception is there so you don't penalize the player for making a good play inside the five by awarding a safety. The player made a great play to prevent a touchdown and so you shouldn't penalize him with a safety. You can call it a momentum exception. Heck, you can even say he gained possession outside of the endzone and his forward progress was stopped. I just don't think this situation should be over officiated. I don't believe you would get as much heat by ruling the ball down at the 2 yard line than you would by ruling a safety. Just my $0.02.

Scott