Safety or No Safety that is the question

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by dvasques

oh... since were at that. B receives a kick inside their goaline and:
a) start moving out but doesn't cross the goaline. Stops and kneel down to kill the play
b) start moving lateraly to burk time on the clock then gets tackled in the endzone

are those safeties? I'm having a problem determine momentum here

B could run around all day in the end zone. They didn't put the ball there so unless they bring the ball out of the end zone this will be a touchback.

[dvasques]

That's what I've been thinking. They might run in the endzone (lateral, back or to the front) and as long as they don't get out of it, there can't be a safety.
I'm about to turn that into the official rule down here in Rio but I'm still weighting (sp?) on it

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by dvasques

That's what I've been thinking. They might run in the endzone (lateral, back or to the front) and as long as they don't get out of it, there can't be a safety.
I'm about to turn that into the official rule down here in Rio but I'm still weighting (sp?) on it

What other possibilities are you considering? Even in rugby, the same principles apply as to the awards versus responsibility for putting the ball into goal. The only difference, and it's a recent one, once responsibility is determined is that now in Rugby Union you get a much more favorable spot for downing an opposing kickoff in goal at the first opportunity than you do if you run or pass the ball around in goal first.

Do you want to encourage a player who receives the ball from the opposing team to attempt to advance the ball from behind the goal line or not? In Football Canada, they've even adopted rules (I don't know if they're still in force) that allow the team running back a kickoff to have its cake and eat it too in that regard -- awarding a certain minimum yardage as a choice of spot if they get the ball any distance into the field of play and retain possession. I think Arena Football has a similar rule.

Do you want to penalize a team for wasting time in goal when deciding whether to touch the ball down? (That'd be like that Rugby Union thing on kickoffs.)

The current American rules have the great advantage of simplicity. Once the ball enters the end zone, as long as it's still there you need not consider anything about attempts to advance it. The safety or touchback is "in the bank". But I could understand a desire by you to alter the incentives even if that does complicate administration.

There have also been some interesting & sometimes subtle differences between codes in USAn, Canadian, and rugby football in determining responsibility for the ball's being in goal. And then there's Rugby League, where it's treated sort of like a safety regardless of which team was reponsible if the ball stays in bounds, but like a touchback when the ball is kicked out of bounds beyond a goal line; their in-goal area tends to be shallow.

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

In Football Canada, they've even adopted rules (I don't know if they're still in force) that allow the team running back a kickoff to have its cake and eat it too in that regard -- awarding a certain minimum yardage as a choice of spot if they get the ball any distance into the field of play and retain possession.

The rule to which Robert speaks of is if on a punt, B obtains initial possession in it's EZ, and is able to advance the ball outside of the EZ, they are awarded the 20-yard line.

This provision does not apply on a kick-off.

[dvasques]

Robert, I think I'm inclined to go with the simplicity deal. Guess I'll adopt, next season, that whenever the ball reaches the endzone it's going to be a touchback unless the ball leaves the EZ in posetion of R