Touchback or Safety?

[Kirby]

Rom Gilbert has an interpretation for NCAA in Pre-Season Quiz #10 on this same play. He rules touchback as forced touching only applies during kicks.

Here is Rom's ruling:

Initial impetus is considered expended and the responsibility for the ball's progress is charged to a player if the ball comes to rest and he gives it new impetus by any contact with it. The ignoring of this type of touching only applies during scrimmage kicks that have crossed the neutral zone and free kicks. Although it perhaps seems unfair to charge B77 with new impetus, that is the rule.

So, it looks like the NCAA ruling does not go outside of rule support but the FED ruling does. Interesting.

[ajmc]

Thanks for the Case Book reference, Bob. I've accepted, long ago, that when my logic is contradicted by the Case Book, go with the Case Book. At least both approaches wound up at the same destination, A's responsibility for the ball getting to the EZ, producing a safety.

When reviewing NF: 2.13.1, a "yellow" light lit when I read, "a new force may result...." which provides just enough flexibility to proceed in either direction.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Thanks for the Case Book reference, Bob. I've accepted, long ago, that when my logic is contradicted by the Case Book, go with the Case Book. At least both approaches wound up at the same destination, A's responsibility for the ball getting to the EZ, producing a safety.

When reviewing NF: 2.13.1, a "yellow" light lit when I read, "a new force may result...." which provides just enough flexibility to proceed in either direction.

REPLY: Right, but the bigger question is what if it's B's block that knocks A into the loose ball? It appears from the case play that a new force will be attributed to B and that the result of the play will be a touchback. Now that's a completely different "destination" than the rules suggest.