Safety or Touchback-A Force Issue?
 

First post for me.
A fellow official came up with this scenario for a pregame during the ride to a game.
Free kick; R muffs at his 5 yardline. Try as he might he just can't get possesion. As K is bearing down on him, he comes to the realization that he will not be able to pick it up so he bats it backward through his own endzone.
Flag for illegal batting, but what is the result of the play?
NFHS Rule 2-13 on force has conflicting articles.
2-13-1 says "After a fumble, kick, or backward pass has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff."
2-13-4 says "Force is not a factor: a. On kicks going into r's endzone, since these kicks are always a touchback regardless of who supplied the force."
Example 9-40 in The Redding study guide gives essentially the same scenario and comes to the conclusion that it's a touchback because "force is never a factor on a kick going into r's endzone."
While it is true the kick has not ended, why have 2-13-1 in the rules at all? That one clearly states a new force may be applied.
My fellow official is going with a touchback, I'm going with safety.
What say all of you?

i have a penalty on the illegal bat(previous spot foul), if penalty is declined i have a touchback.

I would go with illegal batting. Let the kicking team decline the penalty and then it's a safety.

If he were to catch the kick at the 5 and then run into the endzone, the ball is not dead because of the new force put on the ball.

I would say the bat is a new force so it is live.

posasession and muff are completely two different animals.

2-13-4a says force is not a factor for kicks going into R's EZ, no matter who supplied the force. 2-24-2 says a kick ends when a player gains possession (catch, recover, handed to or snapped to him) or when it becomes dead for some other reason. Even though it was batted by R, the ball is still a kick until it crosses the GL. Yankeesfan is correct. Since R's bat happened during a loose ball play, enforcement is from the previous spot. If K declines you have a TB.

I still go back to 2-13-1 that says you may put a new force onto a grounded kick. Under that scenario how can it not be a safety?

2-13-1 has nothing to do with this scenario because the ball went into the endzone.

REPLY: shaefner...2-13-1 exists only to cover situations where a new force is added to a kick entering K's end zone. It can never apply to kicks entering R's end zone as you correctly pointed out. Consider this play:

PLAY: K's punt from A's 5 is blocked and comes to rest where either (a) K10 or (b) R6 muffs the loose ball into K's endzone and across the sideline. RULING: (a) Safety since it is K's force that put the ball into K's end zone where it became dead. In (b) it's a touchback since it was a new force by R which sent the ball across K's goal line.

2-13-1 could give you a safety under the right circumstances but 2-13-4a specifically says no new force can be added to kicks into R's EZ, these are ALWAYS touchbacks.

Think of 2-13-4a as an exception to 2-13-1 and you will see that you can have both exist in harmony with each other.

It does make sense now that you use only K's endzone in 2-13-1.
Thanks for the input. Here's to everyone having a great end of season and playoff games

Bob,

I'm a novice to the rules here, but Situation (b) seems to be incorrect to me.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought a muff does not add a new force. So wouldn't this be a safety in both situations?

Bossman a muff of a pass, kcik or fumble in flight is not considered a new force however, check out the last sentence in 2-13-1.

"After a fumble, kick or backward pass has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff."

Also check out 2-13-2 for a more complete answer.

I bet you drink Guinness because that was Brilliant!!!

A touchback in (b)? So K gets the ball back at their 20? R loses possession of the ball because they blocked a punt into the EZ? I'm not following this. :confused: