Love kick plays....

[DrMooreReferee]

During a punt, R1 retreats to his 4 yard line where he catches a scrimmage kick and his momentum carries him into his end zone where he fumbles the ball out into the field of play where K1 muffs the ball back into the end zone where R1 falls on it. During the kick, R2 held K2 at R's 18 yard line. RULING: Since the result of the play is a touchback, the PSK foul will be enforced from the all but one principal. Basic Spot is the 20, foul at the 18, so it will be R's ball 1st and 10 at R's 9 yard line.

OK, everyone tell me if this is right or wrong.

[Warrenkicker]

I believe this is wrong. The kick ended at the 4. Because R is the next to put the ball in play it is a PSK foul. The spot of the foul is the 18 and the end of the kick is the 4. Penalize half the distance from the 4 and it is R's ball first and 10 at the 2.

[mbyron]

I agree with Warrenkicker. The momentum exception does not apply to the OP because R1 fumbled the ball before it became dead in the endzone. The post-scrimmage spot for PSK fouls is the end of the kick, in this case R's 4. R's ball, 1/10 @ R's 2.

Had R1 NOT fumbled the ball, the momentum exception would apply. But since there was a foul, the basic spot would still be the end of the kick (not the 20 due to the touchback), and enforcement would be exactly the same.

So the fumble in the endzone is a red herring.

[DrMooreReferee]

Excellent job guys!!! Can't fool you.... but I thought this was a nasty little question.

[Reffing Rev.]

Assuming K1's muff is a new force...

If the fumble were still the force? safety. Penalty probably declined.

[ppaltice]

I agree with Reffing Rev, we need to know if K supplied a new force to put the ball back into the EZ. Definitely if the penalty is accepted, the penalty is from the 4 (as that is the basic spot when the penalty occurred). But, if we rule the fumble from the field of field of play back into the EZ was the result of R (and not a new force by K), we have a safety.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

But, if we rule the fumble from the field of field of play back into the EZ was the result of R (and not a new force by K), we have a safety.

You're talking about a quite different play. R's fumble put the ball OUT of the EZ. There was no fumble in the field of play.

[VALJ]

If R fumbles the ball from the EZ into the field of play, though, K can still provide force to put the ball back in the EZ through a muff. Can't they? Heck, I'd think it would almost HAVE to be a new force, wouldn't it?

[ppaltice]

Depends on how the football bounces. It is possible for the ball to bounce backwards from the original fumble.

[VALJ]

True, ppal. For some reason, the "mental picture" I got of this play didn't involve the ball bouncing backwards on its own...

[Time2Ref]

The OP doesn't state whether or not R's fumble into the field of play hits the ground or not.

If the ball has hit the ground, then K's muff is a new force.

If the ball has not hit the ground then K's muff is NOT a new force.

2-13-3...The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not considered a new force.

[Reffing Rev.]

As has been said before, K's muff of a grounded fumble does not automatically become a new force. The official must judge whether or not the ball would have returned to the end zone without the muff.

In the OP

Kick ends at the 4...momentum exception puts the ball into the end zone, force is not an issue. R fumbles the ball from within the end zone. When the ball left the end zone the momentum exception was canceled. The loose ball was still in possession of team R (team possession) and then K muffs the ball back into the end zone. Here are some possibilities.

If the fumble is not grounded, then K1's muff is not a new force = safety.

If the fumble is grounded, but bouncing back towards the end zone when K1 muffs the ball which may already enter the end zone I would not consider this a new force = safety.

If the fumble is grounded and at rest/rolling away/not going to possibly enter the end zone then I would consider K1's muff a new force = touchback.

In any event the basic spot is the 4 (end of the kick for PSK enforcement).

[Time2Ref]

As always, we would have to actually see the play...........Otherwise, we need to go on the information provided by the OP.

Since the OP stated:
"...where he fumbles the ball out onto the field of play...."
It is pretty obvious that the ball is NOT rolling back towards the end zone.

Does K's muff provide the new force to put the ball back into R's end zone? Once again, we go to the OP, which states
"...K1 muffs the ball back into the end zone..."
Once again, pretty obvious what the OP means.

The only question remaining is did R's fumble touch the ground or not? The OP never clarified this point. (rule 2-13-3 already quoted).

Assuming doesn't seem like a good officiating technique to me. If it was, then we might go on to assume that the ballboy tossed a second football onto the field of play during the kick.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Time2Ref

Assuming doesn't seem like a good officiating technique to me.

In this case, why not? You-all have covered all contingencies, so there's no need to find out which case the original poster had in mind.

If it was, then we might go on to assume that the ballboy tossed a second football onto the field of play during the kick.

Hey, now that's an interesting scenario! What happens if some players on one team, but not the other, treat it as the ball in play, so it appeared to operate to the advantage of one side?

Robert

[Time2Ref]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

In this case, why not? You-all have covered all contingencies, so there's no need to find out which case the original poster had in mind.

I see your point.