Touchback ??
 

Question 93, Part 2 test: It is a touchback if A1 fumbles on B's 5-yard line and B1's muff forces the loose ball into B's end zone and out of bounds beyond the end line. I have F because it would be a safety, I think. I need help with justification.

You are correct - look up the definition of safety. B has forced the ball into their own end zone and it has gone OOB there: safety.

Assuming the fumble was grounded, the answer would be true. The force that put the ball into A's end zone was B's muff. However, if the fumble was not grounded, we cannot have a new force, so the answer is false.

REPLY: Mike...you're correct of course, but note that the test question removes that possibility by saying "...and B1's muff forces the loose ball into B's end zone..." There's no ambiguity in this question at all.

Lawyering up....key... team possession....

Rule 2-13-4...Force is not a factor:
b. When a backward pass or fumble is declared dead in the end zone of the opponent of the player who passed or fumbled, with no player possession.

Rule 8-5-3... It is a touchback when:
c. A fumble is the force, or a muff or bat of a backward pass or a fumble after either has touched the ground is the new force, which sends the ball to or across the the opponent's goal line and provided such opponent is in team possession or the ball is out of bounds when it becomes dead or behind dead on or behind its goal line.

By these rules... It is a touchback...

No player possession... Team A still had team possession.

I'll let you read the whole rule...
Rule 8-5-2 ... It is a safety when:
b .....provided the ball becomes dead there in his team's possession...

I'm clear on the 2-13-4 ruling, force is not a factor in this play. Its a fumble into the opponents end zone with no player possesion.

The second rule confuses me because it states that it is a touchback if the muffing of a grounded fumble causes the ball to go across the opponents goal line .... So if A is backed up against their own goal line and they fumble when B muffs the grounded fumble back into A's end zone it would become a touchback for A.

In this case/question, since B's muff put it across B's goal line I don't think this rule applies. I do think that 2-13-4 makes it clear that the muffing is essentially ignored as a new force so I would agree with touchback as the ruling.

In my mind this play looks something like this, A fumbles going in at the 3 yard line. A mess of bodies go after the loose ball and the ball is knocked across the goal line and out of bounds. Since the ball ends up in the beyond the goal line (is OOB considered in the end zone?), by 2-13-4, force is not considered a factor. This saves us from trying to determine who was the very last player to touch the ball in a pile of 6 guys all going for it just before it crosses the goal line. A put the ball into the end zone and out of bounds, touchback for B.

Is my logic correct?

Questions like this get thrown out all the time because it did not give all the information. A new force is predicated on if the ball is grounded and it the answer could be true or false based on some other language. I agree that for the most part you cannot assume, but it is a poorly written question if you ask me.

BTW, what was the actual answer to the question?

Peace

REPLY: Wait a minute...force is most certainly a factor in this play. 2-13-4b does not apply to this play situation. 2-13-4b says that force is not a factor "...When a backward pass or fumble is declared dead in the end zone of the opponent of the player who passed or fumbled, with no player possession." This ball was not declared dead in the end zone. It rolled out of bounds beyond the end line.

The play which shows when you use 2-13-4b is this: PLAY: A1 fumbles on B's 5-yard line and B1's muff forces the loose ball into B's end zone where no player attempts to secure possession. Covering official finally blows the ball dead. RULING: Force is not a factor here since by rule 8-2-1c, the result of the play is a TD for Team A.

I was a wasn't sure about if OOB beyond the line was considered dead in the end zone. That makes sense.

So in the case of the large pile of guys going after a grounded fumble near the goal line we do need to determine which person was the last to touch it before it entered the end zone or is the scrum not considered a new force?

I'm just struggling with trying to determine which of the diving bodies was the last to reach out and knock the ball across the line. That's why I wouldn't think that force would come into play. I would think force is somebody trying to do something "routine" like recover a kick or pick up a fumble with nobody near them. When its a pile going after it and its bouncing around, unless somebody bats it I wouldn't consider the act of diving and trying to recover it a new force.

Can only one new force be applied to a grounded fumble or can multiple new forces be applied? i.e., B muffs it (diving), then A muffs it (diving), then B muffs it again (diving) - are those 3 new forces applied or is it just the initial new force that we are concerned with?

Thanks

REPLY: Let's take your questions one at a time...

1. Last to touch really may not have any significance. All that matters is that your judgment determines who is responsible for a ball crossing a goal line and entering an endzone. A good guideline to follow is this. If you think it reasonable that the ball would have entered the endzone without a player's muff or bat, do NOT rule a new force. Conversely, if the ball is sitting almost at rest or if it is moving briskly away from the goal line and then a player muffs it so that it enters the endzone, that's a new force.

2. There may be multiple opportunities for players to apply a force on a loose ball, but the only one that matters is the one that puts it across the goal line.

3. "I'm just struggling with trying to determine which of the diving bodies was the last to reach out and knock the ball across the line." That's why you get paid the big bucks. You need to make the final determination as to whose muff/bat really caused the ball to enter the endzone.

4. One other 'unwritten' recommendation that you won't find in the rule book: When a team puts the ball on the ground (fumble, muffed backward pass) near a goal line, make sure you give their opponents the benefit of the doubt regarding any marginal new force; i.e. when in doubt, rule that it was not an opponent's new force that put the ball in the endzone. [Note: This is really just my opinion. Others may disagree.]

I agree, do not be a hero. Call what is likely not what is legally right from a pure black and white rule point of view.

Peace

Bob M., thanks for the answers and guidelines. They make sense (all execpt the big bucks :))

The answer key that I found for the Part II exam says that the answer is
FALSE and cites 8-5-2b.

So, I'll eat crow... since the way I read 8-5-2b implied that the ball be in
team possession of the person that caused the ball to be in the end zone.
....

the last or clause must be the hook that causes this to be a safety....

"or the ball is out of bounds when it becomes dead when it becomes dead on
or behind their goal line."

Good points from Bob M. to consider.