Rose Bowl fumble

[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....."