Touchback or not?

[Blue37]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: The key to this ruling is understanding the definition of "recovery." (See, you knew we'd somehow come back to rule 2 on this one ). Look at rule 2-36-1. It says that "An airborne player has completed a recovery when he first contacts the ground inbounds with the ball in his possession." And where did he first contact the ground? In the endzone. hence, he completed the recovery in the endzone maiking this a TB.

Granted, he was guilty of 'first touching' at R's 2, but obviously R will never take the ball there in this case.

Yeah, I see where I missed it. In my example, I did not take into account that it was contact by a defender that forced the receiver back into the field of play. If the airborne receiver's momentum carries him back into the field of play, and he is downed there, it is not a touchdown.

So let's add some contact to the punt play. The ball bounces at the five, K12 goes airborne and grabs the ball at the one. His momentum is parallel to the goal line and there is no question that he would come down in the field of play, BUT R5 pushes him and he lands in the end zone. Does that change things?

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: It says that "An airborne player has completed a recovery when he first contacts the ground inbounds with the ball in his possession." And where did he first contact the ground? In the endzone. hence, he completed the recovery in the endzone maiking this a TB.

Bob - I'm going to split a hair with you on your explanation. It's where the ball was when he touched the ground. Theoretically, he could first touch the ground in the EZ but the ball never cross the plain of the GL.

I know - in your original post the ball was in the EZ with him, so I agree with your ruling.

[parepat]

Let us change it up one more time. This time assume R-2 leaps to catch the ball that has previously hit the ground and then lands at his own 1 and falls into his own end zone. Ruling?

[mikesears]

Grounded or in flight doesn't matter. Requirements for completing a catch or recovery are the same.

[dumbref]

Originally Posted by parepat

Let us change it up one more time. This time assume R-2 leaps to catch the ball that has previously hit the ground and then lands at his own 1 and falls into his own end zone. Ruling?

It’s either a safety or mo – by your description, I’d say mo.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by dumbref

Bob - I'm going to split a hair with you on your explanation. It's where the ball was when he touched the ground. Theoretically, he could first touch the ground in the EZ but the ball never cross the plain of the GL.

I know - in your original post the ball was in the EZ with him, so I agree with your ruling.

REPLY: That's precisely why I worded the play the way I did. I didn't want to split that hair.

But you raise a good point for people to remember: it's the position of the ball when the catch/recovery is completed that will determine the succeeding spot.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Blue37

So let's add some contact to the punt play. The ball bounces at the five, K12 goes airborne and grabs the ball at the one. His momentum is parallel to the goal line and there is no question that he would come down in the field of play, BUT R5 pushes him and he lands in the end zone. Does that change things?

This one's fun because it hinges on the definition of "possession" and "loose" (as applied to a ball). K12 has grasp & control of the ball but hasn't touched the ground, so it's not in player K12's possession. Is it not therefore still loose? If so, then the "responsibility" and "impetus" rules as applied to loose balls of various kinds entering an end zone still apply. If it's still a loose ball and therefore still a kick, then unless it has lost all its forward momentum or is batted by R, responsibility lies with K for putting the ball in the end zone and therefore a touchback would be awarded. In Fed it would be dead as soon as it touched the plane of the goal line. But if K12's grasp of the ball has killed all its momentum toward the goal line (as per description of momentum parallel to goal line), then the "responsibility" rule (based on the ball's being a kick) no longer applies and "new impetus" does.

The only thing is, in a case where a ball is already in contact with K, it's not forced touching. The ball's not being directly contacted by R5, I don't know if you can rule "new impetus" imparted by him.

Robert

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

...But if K12's grasp of the ball has killed all its momentum toward the goal line (as per description of momentum parallel to goal line), then the "responsibility" rule (based on the ball's being a kick) no longer applies and "new impetus" does.
Robert

REPLY: I don't think it does. This is still a kick entering R's endzone since K is still airborne and has not completed the recovery. It's no different than a punt coming to rest, and R muffing it into his own endzone. It's a touchback--nothing more, nothing less.