Unusual Play

[Gregg U]

A few years ago this acutally happened in a game. I think it shows an unfair situation.
Team A was sweeping wide for a 25 yd TD run. As A1 neared the goal line near the sideline, B1 takes the ball from him at the 2 yd. line. They were both in full stride at the time and both players crossed the goal line and went immediately out of bounds. B1 was real happy, but happiness soon turned to confusion and anger when they learned that a safety had just happened. Yes,A got 2 and B had to kick off to them. It, was better to hold them to 2 instead of 6 but I came to believe the momentum rule should be changed to accomodate this kind of play. What do you think?

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Gregg U
A few years ago this acutally happened in a game. I think it shows an unfair situation.
Team A was sweeping wide for a 25 yd TD run. As A1 neared the goal line near the sideline, B1 takes the ball from him at the 2 yd. line. They were both in full stride at the time and both players crossed the goal line and went immediately out of bounds. B1 was real happy, but happiness soon turned to confusion and anger when they learned that a safety had just happened. Yes,A got 2 and B had to kick off to them. It, was better to hold them to 2 instead of 6 but I came to believe the momentum rule should be changed to accomodate this kind of play. What do you think?

According to last years rules, this was the correct ruling. This year, backward passes and fumbles were added to the exception list. I believe the situation this year would result in B gaining possession at the 2 yard line. I am sure other will correct me if I am wrong.

[Theisey]

You'll get no argument from me as currently written momentum rules do not cover this odd case. I'm not sure what to call the action. The Team-B player didn't catch it or recover it.
I guess he "stole" it from Team-A. Hmmmm.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Theisey
You'll get no argument from me as currently written momentum rules do not cover this odd case. I'm not sure what to call the action. The Team-B player didn't catch it or recover it.
I guess he "stole" it from Team-A. Hmmmm.

Isn't a fumble loss of player possession? I guess I'd rule this a fumble. It never touched the ground so I've got a "ungrounded" fumble. If it isn't grounded, it must be in flight.

That's my reasoning anyway

[Mike Simonds]

The play was correctly ruled a safety using the old rule.

Under the new rule I agree with Mike Sears: this is a fumble in flight (loss of player possession and the ball did not become grounded).

Under the new rule I would rule this B's ball first and 10 at their 2 yard line.

We better start our bean bag practice...

[Theisey]

Well, I guess so. NF defines a fumble as loss of player possession other than by handing, passing or legal kick. Stripping a ball from a runner usually results in the ball becoming airborne and either being picked off or recovered after hitting the ground.
I just envisioned, based on the description, the ball being taken right out of his hands. Okay then.. Fumble!

But you're right, seems this play might have been the reason the NF changed their momentum rules for this year.

[Gregg U]

Thanks for the input. I was not yet aware that the momentum rule had been edited to include a fumble interception.
What actually happened was more like a hand off. But a hand off can only occur between teammates (2-19-1).
A fumble is the loss of player possession other than by handing, passing, or legal kick. Thus, this could be ruled a fumble since the player lost possession by an opponent snatching the ball from him.
The only problem now is that the momentum rule calls for and interception of the fumble. And an interception is a catch, which is establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight. Thus this play would still not be adequately covered.
I think this matter could be corrected and simplified if the momentum rule stated that any change of possession inside of the 5 yard line is covered by the momentum rule.
Thanks

[Gregg U]

Looking further, I found that a loose ball is a pass, fumble, or a kick. A loose ball that has not touched the ground is in flight (2-1-3) Thus on this play, since by definition this is a fumble that has not touched the ground it is a fumble in flight. Thus this would be a fumble interception and would be covered under the changes to the momentum rule.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by Gregg U
Looking further, I found that a loose ball is a pass, fumble, or a kick. A loose ball that has not touched the ground is in flight (2-1-3) Thus on this play, since by definition this is a fumble that has not touched the ground it is a fumble in flight. Thus this would be a fumble interception and would be covered under the changes to the momentum rule.

Not a fumble interception but a recovered fumble.

[Gregg U]

Originally posted by Ed Hickland

Not a fumble interception but a recovered fumble.

A recovery is gaining possession of a ball after it strikes the ground(2-34-1). That is not what happened on this play.
An interception is the catch of and opponent's fumble or pass (2-22).
A catch is gaining possession of a ball in flight (2-4-1).
This play is a fumble (2-18) which means it is a loose ball which has not touched the ground making it's status "in flight" (2-1-3). Thus snatching the ball from and opponent is an intercepted fumble. Maybe??????