The Official Forum - Rose Bowl fumble

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)

- Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)

- - Rose Bowl fumble (https://forum.officiating.com/football/56211-rose-bowl-fumble.html)

Correct. Ball becomes dead when recovered and belongs to Team A at that spot.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ_NV (Post 648212)

It's different in NFHS insofar as that if the defense had muffed the ball in the field of play and it became dead in the EZ, then we'd have a safety and not a TB because a new force was applied to a grounded loose ball. I can't remember if the ball was muffed by OSU or if it was just touched, as a touch in NFHS by itself (if not considered a muff) would not have created new force.

In NCAA, a muff only adds new impetus if the ball is at rest as was mentioned before.

NFHS: you left out one very important criteria.. the official must determine whether or not the initial force was what put the EZ regardless of any muff by the defensive player. In order words any muff by the defense had to add a new force. We officials make that determination.

In this specific play, the ball was heading toward the EZ like a hot potato and no additional force was added by the defense. therefore the result is the same for both codes... again on this play.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fan10 (Post 648216)

Just a fan here, but I learned this rule after seeing it come up in a game a few years back. Officials, please correct me if I mess up the wording:

On fourth down or a try, if the ball is recovered by by an offensive player other than the fumbler BEHIND the spot of the fumble (i.e. the ball is fumbled backwards), it's marked at the spot of the fumble RECOVERY.

Your statement is correct for NFL. In a nutshell, on fourth down or a try, the team on offense cannot gain yardage if the ball is fumbled forward. On the other hand, they may lose yardage. This rule also applies to the defense in the last two minutes of each half if they gain possession of the ball by virtue of a turnover.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Forksref (Post 648095)

I saw an Illegal Batting call in one of the bowl games. The ball was loose on the ground and a defender swiped at it and batted it backwards. Good call.

It is not illegal in NCAA to bat a loose ball backwards, unless the ball is in the end zone. (NCAA 9-4-1-c) So the Rose Bowl foul must have been for something else.

From the Outback Bowl... maybe this is the illegal batting play you are thinking of.

YouTube - Batting and IR

However, as you will see... the flags were picked up for another reason.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DJ_NV (Post 648212)

It's different in NFHS insofar as that if the defense had muffed the ball in the field of play and it became dead in the EZ, then we'd have a safety and not a TB because a new force was applied to a grounded loose ball. I can't remember if the ball was muffed by OSU or if it was just touched, as a touch in NFHS by itself (if not considered a muff) would not have created new force. .

Contemplating the difference between a "touch" and a "muff" is like trying to split a hair beyond recognition. NF: 2-27 defines a "Muff" as, "the touching of a loose ball by a player in an attempt to gain possession.

NF: 2-44 defines "Touching" "Touching refers to any contact with the ball, i.e., either by touching or being touched by it..."

NF: 2-13-1 through 4 defines "Force" as, " the result of energy exerted by a player which provides movement of the ball..." As previously suggested, the key factor is the judgment of the covering official whether or not any touching/muffing constitutes a new force responsible, "for forcing the ball from the field of play across a goal line....."