Force??????

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by MI Official

My thought is exactly that... safety. There is no argument that the fumble put the ball into the endzone. BUT what caused it go OUT of the EZ? (B diving for it)?? I do not have the case book in front of me, but I do remember in the scoring plays(point after) it gives examples of a 1 point safety on a try IF there is a fumble and when two players are diving for the ball B causes it to go into the enzone and A recovers.

Can't say I agree with it, but I have never had to call it.

2-13-1 "The term force is used only in connection with the goal line and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end zone."

A's fumble put it into the end zone. What happens after that doesn't matter

[kdf5]

That was a safety since B didn't touch it until after it crossed the plane of the GL.

[Trap]

Just to summarize what i think i'm reading.

If the ball was at the 1 yardline when the fight to recover the ball started ( and the defense forced the ball into the endzone, regardless of whether they ever gained control) with it going out the end zone, it would be a touchback.

But in this case the offense forced it in, thus it is a saftey.

Is this accurate?

[kdf5]

The important thing to remember about force is to make sure to determine whether or not the ORIGINAL force is spent. If A fumbles and the ball would go in the EZ even though B touches or muff it, then you can't say there's a new force on the ball and that the original force still remains. So, in this video it's clear that A's fumble put it in the EZ. Now go back and think about B muffing it. It's clear that a muff by B wouldn't be a new force in this video since the fumble was sufficient to put it in the EZ.

Here's the rule on force, 2-13-1 through 2-13-4:

ART. 1 . . . Force is the result of energy exerted by a player which provides
movement of the ball. The term force is used only in connection with the goal line and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end one. Initial force results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap. After a fumble, kick or backward pass has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff.

ART. 2 . . . Responsibility for forcing the ball from the field of play across a
goal line is attributed to the player who carries, snaps, passes, fumbles or kicks the ball, unless a new force is applied to either a backward pass, kick or fumble that has been grounded.

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

ART. 4 . . . Force is not a factor:
a. On kicks going into R’s end zone, since these kicks are always a touchback
regardless of who supplied the force.
b. When a backward pass or fumble is declared dead in the end zone of the
opponent of the player who passed or fumbled, with no player possession.

[mbyron]

I'm not sure what you guys are seeing. I saw B76 knock the ball out of the QB's hand, and it rolled into the EZ. Since B supplied the force that put the ball in the EZ, I've got a touchback.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not sure what you guys are seeing. I saw B76 knock the ball out of the QB's hand, and it rolled into the EZ. Since B supplied the force that put the ball in the EZ, I've got a touchback.

Even though B is responsible for causing A to fumble, by rule A is still responsible for forcing the ball across the goal line since the A player fumbled the football.

2-13-2 is your reference.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Even though B is responsible for causing A to fumble, by rule A is still responsible for forcing the ball across the goal line since the A player fumbled the football.

2-13-2 is your reference.

Yeah, I saw that. Don't like it.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by mbyron

I'm not sure what you guys are seeing. I saw B76 knock the ball out of the QB's hand, and it rolled into the EZ. Since B supplied the force that put the ball in the EZ, I've got a touchback.

I missed that but it doesn't matter. Even if he would have fumbled it first and B batted or muffed it while it was still airborne there wouldn't be a new force. The fumble was still the force.

[MI Official]

Yes, fumble into the endzone. But it wasnt declared dead with no team in possession, its not a kick, and it wasnt airborne. Nor, IMO, was the original force sufficient to make the ball go out the back of the endzone.

I defintely see that a new force was exerted, albeit in the general direction of the original force.

Again, if it were a punt and B touched and thus rolled into Rs EZ with possession would we not consider this a new force and put it into play at the 20 even if we knew the ball' s original force would have resulted in a dead ball in the field of play? because it is a grounded kick, fumble, or backwards pass.