Touchback or Down on 1
 

I'm a new basketball ref, and my friends think that because I'm a ref, I know football too. They posed this question to me, and I said that I didn't know the answer, but I knew some guys who could tell me the correct answer. Thanks in advance. Here's the situation: Defender intersepts in their own endzone. The intended receiver immediately tackels the defender with the ball, and in the process, he is pushed across the goalline and falls at the 1 yard line. Does he get his forward progress to the 1, or is it a touchback to the 20?

We've debated this play a few times on here. I have him down on the 1.

I believe you are correct. If the ball gets completely out of the endzone you have to give him his forward progress at the 1.

Just so I understand this and I am going to use an extreme case to make the point...

Defender intercepts the ball 5 yards deep in the endzone. The WR rather than tackle the defender picks him up and carries him out of the endzone droppping the defender on the 1.

Would you really call this play down on the 1 if the defender was making no effort to leave the endzone?

Just curious.

I had a play like this happen in a game this year. We called a touchback, because the defender was not attempting to advance the tackle was initiated in the endzone and was completed on the one.

I would think this would be similar to a play where the receiver catches the ball while in the air in the EZ, gets hit and driven back to the 1 yard line. The ruling in this play is if he downed immediately, it is a TD, BUT if he comes down on his feet and continues to fight or run, then down at the one.
Thus, I would say if he goes down on the hit, TB, but if stays on feet, it would be the spot of his forward most progress. So, in your play, he went down at the one, so TB.

I think that if the B player makes no effort to advance the ball, and the force of A's tackle moves him forward out of the endzone, I would still rule a touchback. I don't think it would be wise or fair to spot the ball at the 1, effectively taking away 19 yards of turf following a good defensive play.

The questions would then follow about review. Under NCAA or NFL is this spot subject to review? What crieria would used to determine if the spot is correct or not?

But his forward most progress IS the 1. :confused:

Ok...we should get this clear. I don't have a Fed book with me, but I do have the NCAA book. Rule 8-6 discusses Touchbacks. Rule 8-6-1 says that it is a touchback if the ball "...becomes dead in the possession of a
player on, above or behind his own goal line and the attacking team is
responsible for the ball being there". Also, approved ruling 8-6-1-II states "The ball is not automatically dead when intercepted. However, if in the judgment of the official there is perceptible time during which the Team B player made no attempt to advance after the interception, declaring a touchback is justified." I think this gives us the wiggle room we need to justify calling a TB on the play you describe.

I see the confusion on what I said, but I meant his progress on "his own accord" not the opponent hitting him. The above AR hits what I was getting at.

Is there such a thing as BACKWARD PROGRESS?

Bob

Could an argument be made that, since the succeeding spot would be the 20 yard line in case of a touchback, the 20-yard line is, in fact, the forward-most progress?

I always ask myself- where was the ball is when it became dead?

Per NF rules the ball becomes dead when "a runner is held so his forward progress is stopped."

Forward progress is defined as "the end of advancement of the ball in a runner’s possession... toward the opponent’s goal and determines the dead-ball spot."

From this I believe you have to give them the ball at the 1. The rules do not include any type of special exception for this play.

My exception is common sense. If he made no effort to leave the EZ, I have a TB. I see this as no different than a runner on a scrimmage play advancing from his EZ to the 1 and then being pushed back into the EZ. He didn't cause the ball to go back into the EZ, so there is not safety, and, in the above-mentioned play, the player who intercepted the ball did not cause the ball to leave the EZ. TB

The key difference being that your ruling in your play is backed up by the rules while your ruling on the play above is not. On your play a live ball never went back into the end zone because it became dead when his forward progress was stopped at the 1.

This is a dangerous, and misleading, rule-wise, statement, when talking about the endzone and getting out of it, in my experience. I once heard a long-time varsity-level umpire make a statement on a runner making "effort to leave the end zone" related to whether or not he was going to call a safety on that player if they were then downed in the end zone.:rolleyes:
Agreed.