Momentum question
 

A1 is running inside the five yard line after a long run. B1 has an angle on him and catches him and simply takes the ball away from him at the 2 yard line. B1's momentum takes him into the end zone where he is downed.

Does everybody agree this is a momentum exception based on this being a fumble and it will be B's ball on the two?

Works for me.

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

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...

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. :cool:

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.

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.

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.

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

Fedex, that sounds very logical. I was not arguing to apply momentum exception or not, merely questioning what appears to me to be a gap in the rules.

If you have a steal of the ball there is obviously a change of possession, but the ball was never loose according to the original play description. That was the point of the post I think.

Without a loose ball how can the momentum execption apply?

What rule are you applying to place the ball at the B2?

The momentum exception doesn't say anything about the ball being loose, only that a defensive player intercepts or recovers an opponent's fumble or backward pass.
The definition of a fumble is "any loss of player possession other than by handing, passing, or a legal kick."
Since this meets the definition of a fumble, I also believe the momentum exception applies because technically the B player has gained possession of a fumble.
Bag it and apply the exception.
2-18 and 8-5-2.

I guess I said what I said poorly, so I'll try again.

Either you must rule the loss of possession a fumble (loss of player possession other than by handing, passing or a legal kick), and give the momentum exception, or you must rule simultaneous possession, and have no recovery by the defense. I don't see any possibility of there being both a COP on this play, and having the momentum exception not apply. I can see no way to rule a safety.

I don't think you can have simultaneous possession. You can have a simultaneous catch or recovery though.

You cannot catch or recover a ball in another player's possession, so the momentum rule must apply only to a loose ball.

I understand your point Rick, and I think this is somewhat of a grey area because of the way the exception is worded. I remember a couple years ago when they changed the momentum to include fumbles as well as kicks and interceptions. I'm guessing this scenario didn't come into their minds when updating the rule.
I do believe the spirit of this rule does lean toward the exception applying here. I believe this rule is in place to prevent awarding a safety when a good defensive play has been made, as is the case here. The rule may not be worded as well as we would like, but we should understand the reasons behind the rules as well because it helps us be better officials.
Good discussion.

Are you agreeing with me or arguing with me? :)

If arguing, explain to me how you are justifying a safety on this play ... what EXACTLY happens (even if only for a microsecond) to both give B the ball and disallow the momentum exception?

What happens is B gains possession of the ball and runs it into the endzone. Because there was no catch or recovery involved, the momentum exception technically doesn't apply. Same as if the ball was handed to him and he ran into the endzone with it.

If he would run into the end zone and be downed there then you would have a safety. Everything else would be moot. The momentum exception wouldn't apply because he decided to purposely run in there.

This play didn't happen to us but I saw one close to it on the youtube website. B1 took the ball away and his momentum took him in but he ran it back out and was tackled on the five or so. But it got me to thinking what if. Our crew decided it's a fumble and you would apply momentum.

What if he was running full speed when he was handed the ball inside the 5 and his momentum carried him into the end zone.

Are you saying A1 is going to just give the ball to B1?

B took the ball away from a at the 2 yard line. this is considered a fumble. bean bag spot. Momentum carried him into end zone. put ball into play at the 2 year line..

Sure, by mistake obviously. Would this be any different than B taking the ball away?

I was wondering for clarification. Maybe I'm seeing your point. Are you saying this? Since by definition you can only hand a ball to teammate there is no such thing as handing the ball to an opponent for rules' sake. Therefore this is also a fumble therefore momentum would apply in this play as well?

The momentum rule only applies to the catching of a ball in flight or recovery of a grounded ball, and this was niether. You could use the spirit of the rule to rule the same as if momentum had caused this. Sounds like a rewrite of the exception is in order.

No, that's not what I am saying. I think we're stretching it to say that the momentum exception applies even though there is no "recovery". I wondered if we could stretch it even further by saying it applies even when there is no fumble, since a fumble is loss of possession other than handing, etc.

Does the rule say grounded?

Even such a ridiculous scenario is technically a fumble. You can't HAND the ball to an opponent. And since even this is still a fumble, the exception applies - not just logically and legally, but by the likely intent of the rule as well.

NFHS 2006 Rule 8-5-2
It is a safety when:
a. A runner carries the ball ...blah-blah-blah
EXCEPTION: When a defensive player intercepts an opponent's forward pass; intercepts or recovers an opponnet's fumble or backward pass; or blah-blah-blah


The momentum exception did not originally include fumbles unless they were grounded. That was changed a couple years ago.

A couple of other key rules:
2-18
A fumble is any loss of player possession other than by handing, passing or legal kick.
2-19-1
Handing the ball is transferring player possession from one player to a teammate in blah-blah-blah

So ... the original play is a fumble and the momentum exception applies. 1&10 at the 2 yard line.

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.