Rose Bowl fumble

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by SamG

......
Was OSU given the ball simply because the ball went through the EZ?

What would have been the call if the ball went out on the OSU1 with neither team gaining possession?

Thanks

The result of the play was a touchback as the impetus that put the ball into the EZ was the Oregon Fumble. No different than in NFHS ball.

Had the ball gone out of bounds prior to entering the EZ, then the ball would have belonged to Oregon... but not at that spot. NCAA has a forward fumble rule that would have been applied.

[SamG]

So if Oregon would have recovered IN the EZ, they would have gotten the ball back at the point of the fumble? Or once the ball crossed the plane as a result of the fumble is in OSU's ball regardless?

I was actually rooting for OSU, so this isn't "sour grapes". I'm just trying to understand the rule.

Thanks

[TXMike]

would have been a TD for Oregon since it was 2d down. If that happened on 4th down then it would hav egione back to the spot of fumble.

[Theisey]

SamG: just to expand a little on what TXMike said... had it been fourth down... only the "fumbler" can recover the ball and not have the play whistled dead at that point with the ball being returned to the spot of the fumble.

It is crucial for an official to know the down, player number of who fumbled and player number of who recovered. I think the philosophy now that replay is part of the game at the big time level is to let the play end normally and sort it out afterward and/or let IR correct the result.

[ajmc]

Just as a point of reference, although the play discussed here is during the "Rose Bowl" which is obviously covered by NCAA rules, the "4th down fumble exception" does not exist, nor apply, to High School (NFHS) rules.

[DJ_NV]

Originally Posted by Theisey

The result of the play was a touchback as the impetus that put the ball into the EZ was the Oregon Fumble. No different than in NFHS ball.

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.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by DJ_NV

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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by DJ_NV

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....."