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.

[Bullycon]

2-13-2: 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.

A4 fumbled. The ball rolls, without a new force, across A's goal line. Thus, A4's fumble is the force that causes the ball to cross the goal line.

8-5-2: It is a safety when:
b. A player who is either in the field of play or in his end zone, forces a loose ball from the field of play to or across his goal line by his kick, pass, fumble, snap or by a new force to a grounded loose ball with his muff or bat or illegal kick (when the penalty is declined), provided the ball becomes dead there in his team's possession (including when the ball is declared dead with no player in possession), or the ball is out of bounds when it becomes dead on or behind their goal line. This does not apply to a legal forward pass which becomes incomplete.

A4 forced the ball across his goal line. The ball was out of bounds behind their goal line. It is a safety.

There is no force after the ball has crossed the goal line. A4 is permanently responsible for the ball being in the end zone until the ball leaves the end zone and returns to the field of play.


Trap, in regard to your scenario, you are correct.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by 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.

Force only counts from the field of play across the goal line. Once it crosses the goal line the force has been determined and it will either be a safety or a TB. In the video it's A's fumble that causes it to cross the GL, therefore it's going to be a safety no matter what B does to it AFTER it crossed the GL.

[NorCalRef12]

Many of you seem to be upset that B is at an advantage because all they have to do is get the ball out of the back of the end zone for this play to be ruled a safety.

A fumbled so A was responsible for putting it across his own goal line. Now that it is there, B76's muff is irrelevant because the ball was already in the end zone.

Since this is a grounded fumble, B is still prohibited from batting or kicking the ball out of the back of the end zone. If a player of B commits one of these fouls then A will have the option of taking the result of the play (a safety), or enforcing a 15 yard penalty on B from the previous spot.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kdf5

In the video it's A's fumble that causes it to cross the GL, therefore it's going to be a safety no matter what B does to it AFTER it crossed the GL.

Are you sure? What if B recovers it after it enters the EZ?

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Are you sure? What if B recovers it after it enters the EZ?

I was referring to the video.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by kdf5

I was referring to the video.

OK. And you said "no matter what," which encompasses all possibilities. And there's another possibility besides safety on this play.

[MI Official]

So after reading the replies ( all good btw, that is why I use this forum)

It appears that once a ball has crossed a goal line, regardless of any subsequent action(s) it has to be a safety or TD??????

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by MI Official

It appears that once a ball has crossed a goal line, regardless of any subsequent action(s) it has to be a safety or TD??????

In this case, yes. Well, A could also recover and run it out of the endzone.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by mbyron

OK. And you said "no matter what," which encompasses all possibilities. And there's another possibility besides safety on this play.

I understand your point. However, I am referring to what happened in the video, not what could have happened.