Safety or No Safety that is the question
 

I posted this question on another sight but don’t know if every one reads both so I’m posting here too.

I have been having this friendly debate with on of our fellow zebras and I was wondering if brighter minds than ours could help out our debate.

Caseplay 5.3.4 SITUATION B: A1 receives the snap behind his own goal line. A1 advances, but is tackled and the ball becomes dead with its foremost point in the field of play, but part of the ball is in the end zone. RULING: Safety. To avoid a safety, the ball must be advanced completely out of the end zone with no part of it touching the goal line (8-5-2)

Now we both agree with this but here is where we begin to differ.

Lets say that the ball A1 receives the snap at the one yard line and fumbles the ball right at the goal line and falls on the loose ball while half of the ball is still in the field of play and the other half is in the end zone.

Or that A1 gets tackled with the ball partially in the end zone and partially in the field of play (note: the ball never completely enters the end zone on either of the plays mentioned above).

I say SAFETY

It's a one point safety.:)

Of course it's a safety! Stick to your guns!

That is what told him. But he has been officiating 10 years that is 7 years longer than me.

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

Just tell your buddy that coming out of the endzone is the same as going into the endzone. If any part of the ball is breaking the plane of the goal line (the edge that is on the playing field side of the line), the ball is in the end zone. Simple as that. In your case, if any part of the ball is breaking that plane, it's a safety.

As to the two kick plays - in Federation, it is impossible to receive a kick in the end zone - the ball is dead as soon as it breaks the plane of the goal line. So all he's doing is catching a deadball.

As far as force and kicks, there is NEVER any question. The kick is always the force (by rule). A kick doesn't end until it is possessed or the ball is dead. So on a kick play - ANY TIME the kick goes into the end zone, it is a touchback.

Take your last two plays and make them interceptions - remember that if he wasn't responsible for putting the ball in the end zone, he has no responsibility to get it out of the end zone. So those would both be touchbacks on an interception.

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.

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

You must be talking NCAA or NFL rules cuz if NF the ball would be dead once the kick crossed R's GL. I NCAA or NFL, it is a TB.

sorry, MJT, I am thinking NFL. Forgot that HS kills the ball on the goal line

Touchback. Nothing else matters.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Safety in all occurances.

The bottom "line" is whether the ball is in the end zone or not. There is no "partially in". It's either in or not. If any part of the ball breaks the goal line plane, it is in the end zone.

nascent Rio rules
 

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

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.

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