Touchback or Safety?

[jack015]

This play came up in our rules clinic this week.

A's ball at their own 10. A1 throws a backward pass that hits the ground untouched and is at rest or nearly at rest on the 2 yard line. Before any other player touches the ball, A2 blocks B1 into the ball causing it to go into the EZ and beyond the endline. NFHS ruling?

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by jack015

A's ball at their own 10. A1 throws a backward pass that hits the ground untouched and is at rest or nearly at rest on the 2 yard line. Before any other player touches the ball, A2 blocks B1 into the ball causing it to go into the EZ and beyond the endline.

CANADIAN RULING:

Possession belongs to B, as they were the last to touch the ball before it went OOB in the EZ. A did not provide the force of the ball to the EZ, so there is not a safety on the play. B's ball, 1D/G @ A-2. (1-10-5)

[gtwbam]

Ruling NFHS:
A new force is attributed to "A". If the ball goes beyond the endline as in your play; its a Safety. If B would have recovered in the end zone then it would have been a touchdown.

[MJT]

And this is not a forced touching situation.

[ajmc]

Not quite sure what you intended to suggest by, "this is not a forced touching situation".

NF: 7.4.4 advises, "If a fumble of backwards pass is out of bounds behind a goal line, the ball belongs to the team defending that goal line and the result is either a TB or safety. NF: 2.31.6 suggests, "A backwards pass ends when it is caught, recovered or is out of bounds."

NF: 2.13.1 warns, "....After a backwards pass, fumble or kick has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff". B1, being blocked into the grounded backwards pass is neither a bat, illegal kick nor muff and therefore does NOT constitute a new force. The responsibility of the ball getting to, and through, A's End Zone is A's backwards pass, resulting in a safety.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Not quite sure what you intended to suggest by, "this is not a forced touching situation".

NF: 7.4.4 advises, "If a fumble of backwards pass is out of bounds behind a goal line, the ball belongs to the team defending that goal line and the result is either a TB or safety. NF: 2.31.6 suggests, "A backwards pass ends when it is caught, recovered or is out of bounds."

NF: 2.13.1 warns, "....After a backwards pass, fumble or kick has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff". B1, being blocked into the grounded backwards pass is neither a bat, illegal kick nor muff and therefore does NOT constitute a new force. The responsibility of the ball getting to, and through, A's End Zone is A's backwards pass, resulting in a safety.

REPLY: ajmc...See: 8.5.1 SITUATION B. I agree with you that it's clearly not in sync with rule 2-13-1, but this is the Fed's ruling. How about that...a case play in conflict with the rules !!!

[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.