scrimmage kick play

[mbyron]

Safety.

[DrMooreReferee]

Are you sure?

We had a discussion about this play last night. And it was said that since the force that put the ball into K's EZ was supplied by R, then K didn't have to get the ball out. And even though K did kick the ball, it never came back out of the endzone. Therefore, I have folks in my association who are saying this is actually a touchback and not a safety. I'm just not sure myself.

[mbyron]

If K kicks from the 1 and it's blocked out of the back of the endzone, that's not a safety?

[Brett]

Originally Posted by mbyron

If K kicks from the 1 and it's blocked out of the back of the endzone, that's not a safety?

Under your scenario, you have have no new force and a safety. Under the original scenario, you have a new force and under 8-5-3 (c) I think you have a touch back.

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 opponent’s goal line and provided such opponent is in team possession or the ball is out of bounds when it becomes dead on or behind
its goal line.

In the original scenario you have a muff of a grounded fumble and there is no change of possession in the play so A is still in possession when the ball becomes dead behind the goal line.

I haven't given it too much thought, so if I missed something please let me have it.

[ppaltice]

I don't think the answer to this is obvious. It depends on whether the kick makes it back into the field of play. The ball was forced into K's EZ by R and the ball went out of bounds, so by Rule 8-5-3c. That is the force that puts the ball initially into the EZ. But if K kicks the ball and the ball travels back into the field of play (out of the EZ) and subsequently returns to the EZ and goes OOB, then K is responsible for the force that put the ball into the EZ and it is a safety (8-5-2b). If the kick never makes it out of the EZ, it is a touchback.

[mikesears]

Touchback. Force can only cause the ball to travel INTO and endzone from the field of play. In your play, R supplied the force that put the ball into K's endzone. (But it would have to be totally obvious that the ball wasn't going into an endzone for me to rule this).

Once the ball is in the endzone, we can't have a new force (unless it comes back out and then goes back in again). K could throw a backwards pass across the end line while in the end zone and the result would be the same.

[insatty]

NFHS: Touchback (muff was new force because ball would not have entered endzone with original force).

NCAA: Safety (backward pass was impetus and muff cannot impart new impetus unless ball at rest).

[chymechowder]

This is a safety all the way in Mass. (NCAA). Loose ball becomes dead behind Team A's goal line. And A is responsible for it being there. Yes, B touched the ball twice, but neither action took the responsibility away from A.

When B muffs the ball, it's still a Team A backwards pass (the snap). And when B blocks the ball, it's still a Team A kick.

Not to disparage the Fed rules, but honestly, it seems crazy to me if this could be ruled a touchback. To me it gives a major unfair advantage to Team A.

Take the punt out of the equation: bad snap is rolling at the Team A 1 yardline. B55 dives at it (never gains possession) and the ball squirts out thru the back of the endzone. Are you saying it's a touchback? Team A actually keeps the ball (and moves up at the 20 yard line no less)?! All because Team B touched it last when they muffed it?

Say it ain't so.

[ppaltice]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

This is a safety all the way in Mass. (NCAA). Loose ball becomes dead behind Team A's goal line. And A is responsible for it being there. Yes, B touched the ball twice, but neither action took the responsibility away from A.

When B muffs the ball, it's still a Team A backwards pass (the snap). And when B blocks the ball, it's still a Team A kick.

Not to disparage the Fed rules, but honestly, it seems crazy to me if this could be ruled a touchback. To me it gives a major unfair advantage to Team A.

Take the punt out of the equation: bad snap is rolling at the Team A 1 yardline. B55 dives at it (never gains possession) and the ball squirts out thru the back of the endzone. Are you saying it's a touchback? Team A actually keeps the ball (and moves up at the 20 yard line no less)?! All because Team B touched it last when they muffed it?

Say it ain't so.

In NF it really does depend. In your situation, the initial force was the snap. If the ball is still rolling around at the one yard and B muffs it, it will almost undoubtably be ruled that the initial force (snap) was the cause of the ball entering the EZ. If the ball was stationary at the 1 yard line and B muffs the ball into the EZ, then we would rule that B applied a new force and as a result is responsible for putting the ball into the EZ (identical to NCAA). At the 5 yard line almost at rest, in NF we would probably rule that B applied a new force (even though the ball is not stationary).

NF's wording is not as strict as NCAA (we don't need the ball to be completely at rest), but in practice it's application is very similar.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

This is a safety all the way in Mass. (NCAA). Loose ball becomes dead behind Team A's goal line. And A is responsible for it being there. Yes, B touched the ball twice, but neither action took the responsibility away from A.

When B muffs the ball, it's still a Team A backwards pass (the snap). And when B blocks the ball, it's still a Team A kick.

Not to disparage the Fed rules, but honestly, it seems crazy to me if this could be ruled a touchback. To me it gives a major unfair advantage to Team A.

Take the punt out of the equation: bad snap is rolling at the Team A 1 yardline. B55 dives at it (never gains possession) and the ball squirts out thru the back of the endzone. Are you saying it's a touchback? Team A actually keeps the ball (and moves up at the 20 yard line no less)?! All because Team B touched it last when they muffed it?

Say it ain't so.

It isn't the touching that changes the outcome.


The difference between the two codes is that NCAA requires the ball to be at rest before new impetus can be applied. NF rules is a judgment if the ball would have traveled into the endzone under it's own force (impetus) or if the new force is what caused it to go into the endzone. I like the NCAA rule better myself.