scrimmage kick play

[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.

[Reffing Rev.]

Most every post got this point, but some newer officials may be questioning this so I'll share it here...

Reminder: Force is the action which propels the ball across the goal line, not what causes it to become dead there.

So here is how I think about this play:
Fed: If there is any way the ball would have rolled into the endzone without R/B's muff then the force is A's, when the ball became dead in the endzone it is a safety.

If there is no way the ball would have rolled into the endzone without the muff then the force is B's, when the ball becomes dead in the endzone it is a touchback.

In either case it doesn't matter if K steps out of bounds, has the ball blocked out of bounds, or even kicks the ball so badly it goes out of bounds in the end zone...the force which put the ball into the endzone determines whether it is a safety or a touchback.

In most cases the only time I consider a muff a new force is when the ball is at rest or rolling (not bouncing) away from the goal line. (not bouncing because a football rarely bounces the same way twice)

[Robert Goodman]

Try this one in both of those codes: A's backward pass is clearly traveling backward and crosses the plane of a sideline in the air on A's 2 yard line. B1 jumps over the sideline and bats the pass back into the field of play where it continues traveling backward, crosses the goal line and the ball ends up dead in A1's possession behind A's goal line. The ball did not leave the end zone once a player of A gained possession of it.

Seems it has to be a safety in NCAA and touchback in Fed. But, uh...is B allowed to bat A's backward pass?

Robert in the Bronx

[Mike L]

In NFHS, B may bat any pass in flight in any direction. A may not bat a backward pass forward.
Batting of a pass in flight is not considered to add a new force, so in your case, you have a safety.

[chymechowder]

Originally Posted by Mike L

In NFHS, B may bat any pass in flight in any direction. A may not bat a backward pass forward.
Batting of a pass in flight is not considered to add a new force, so in your case, you have a safety.

one small clarification: I think NCAA rule says that Team A may not bat a backwards pass forward in an attempt to gain yardage. (my emphasis)...which means, I suppose, there are instances where it'd be OK for A to bat forward. (say a backwards pass was about to be intercepted by B, and A's only play was to bat it--forward--away from B.)

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

one small clarification: I think NCAA rule says that Team A may not bat a backwards pass forward in an attempt to gain yardage. (my emphasis)...which means, I suppose, there are instances where it'd be OK for A to bat forward. (say a backwards pass was about to be intercepted by B, and A's only play was to bat it--forward--away from B.)

Rule 9-4-1a
While a pass is in flight, any player eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction (Exception: Rule 9-4-2)

Rule 9-4-2
A backward pass in flight shall not be batted forward by the passing team.

Your assumption is incorrect by rule. I'm not sure if the philosophy of this rule though matches what you say. The definition of batting is "intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hands or arms." The definition of a muff is "an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover a ball that it touched in the attempt." In the play you describe you could possibly call it a muff if you want to let it go.