SG? Momentum & Force

[Reffing Rev.]

B1 intercepts a pass at B3 yard line such that his momentum carries him into B's endzone. While in the end zone and trying to run out of the end zone B1 fumbles the ball. The loose ball in the end zone is either (A) in flight or (B) grounded when A1 muffs the fumble which bounces at the B1 yard line and then rebounds untouched into the end zone where B1 recovers with a knee on the ground.

What is your ruling in A and B? NFHS code, but feel free to discuss NCAA as well.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

B1 intercepts a pass at B3 yard line such that his momentum carries him into B's endzone. While in the end zone and trying to run out of the end zone B1 fumbles the ball. The loose ball in the end zone is either (A) in flight or (B) grounded when A1 muffs the fumble which bounces at the B1 yard line and then rebounds untouched into the end zone where B1 recovers with a knee on the ground.

What is your ruling in A and B? NFHS code, but feel free to discuss NCAA as well.

CANADIAN RULING:

In both cases, Team B 1D/10 @ B-20.

[Welpe]

NCAA Ruling:

1st and 10 for B at the B-3. No new impetus can be imparted on a loose ball while in the endzone. The end result is the ball dead in B's possession in the endzone, which would bring the ball back to the B-3 due to the momentum exception.

I believe Fed would be the same.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Welpe

NCAA Ruling:

1st and 10 for B at the B-3. No new impetus can be imparted on a loose ball while in the endzone. The end result is the ball dead in B's possession in the endzone, which would bring the ball back to the B-3 due to the momentum exception.

I believe Fed would be the same.

Same for FED. B never possessed the ball outside of the end zone. The momentum rule is still in effect.

[AUgrad2006]

There is no new force applied because force applies only to the ball moving from the field of play into the end zone. Per 2-13-1 "Force is used only in connection with the goal line and in only one direction, i.e. from the field of play into the end zone." A1s muff of a ball that is already in the end zone does not result in the ball moving from the field of play to the end zone.

Per 8-5-2 EXCEPTION: "...and his original momentum carries him into the end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team's possession...the ball belongs to the team in possession at the spot where the pass or fumble was intercepted..."

1st/10 for B at the 3 in both scenarios.

[Reffing Rev.]

I'm not so sure I agree, I'm still on the fence on this one. Here is how I'm thinking: when the ball left the end zone whether carried or fumbled that in effect cancelled the exception, then the force which put the ball in the end zone was the fumble, (yes in a way it was both the 'force' which moves the ball out of the end zone until it did the football bounce and became THE force which moved the ball into the end zone). It not being possible to add a new force to a fumble in flight, the fumble would be the only option for a question of force resulting in a safety, but then if the grounded fumble was muffed that could be a new force which would result in a touchback, and when in doubt touchback.

Here are the arguments in my head:
1. If he ran to the one and fumbled it back its a safety/touchback, so when the fumble left the end zone the momentum exception was cancelled, and the force is either the fumble or the muff of a grounded fumble.
2. The last time the ball crossed the goal line has to be your focus, and the last time the ball crossed the goal line it was a result of the fumble: safety or the force was the muff of the grounded fumble: touchback.


P.S. Since a loose ball remains in team possession of the team last in player possession. Team B did have possession at the 1 outside the endzone, even though no player ever possessed the ball outside the endzone.

[SouthGARef]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

I'm not so sure I agree, I'm still on the fence on this one. Here is how I'm thinking: when the ball left the end zone whether carried or fumbled that in effect cancelled the exception, then the force which put the ball in the end zone was the fumble, (yes in a way it was both the 'force' which moves the ball out of the end zone until it did the football bounce and became THE force which moved the ball into the end zone). It not being possible to add a new force to a fumble in flight, the fumble would be the only option for a question of force resulting in a safety, but then if the grounded fumble was muffed that could be a new force which would result in a touchback, and when in doubt touchback.

Here are the arguments in my head:
1. If he ran to the one and fumbled it back its a safety/touchback, so when the fumble left the end zone the momentum exception was cancelled, and the force is either the fumble or the muff of a grounded fumble.
2. The last time the ball crossed the goal line has to be your focus, and the last time the ball crossed the goal line it was a result of the fumble: safety or the force was the muff of the grounded fumble: touchback.


P.S. Since a loose ball remains in team possession of the team last in player possession. Team B did have possession at the 1 outside the endzone, even though no player ever possessed the ball outside the endzone.

I principally disagree with the bolded and italicized section.

From the exception definition: ...and his momentum carries him into the end zone where the ball is declared dead in his team's possession or it goes out of bounds in the end zone...

So this does meet the principles of the momentum exception. The ball is dead in his possession after bouncing out of bounds. I don't see any provision or rule that disallows the momentum exception simply because the ball was fumbled out of the endzone and bounced back in.

I can kind of follow your path on the remainder of your post, but I still think the binding rule in this situation would be 2-13-1 and that force can only be from the field of play to the end zone. So in essence, the muffing of the ball in both scenarios in the endzone is inconsequential. The force that put the ball in the endzone was still the pass by A under the momentum exception. So I've got a touchback and 1st and 10 for B from the 20.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by SouthGARef

The force that put the ball in the endzone was still the pass by A under the momentum exception. So I've got a touchback and 1st and 10 for B from the 20.

In the OP, the force that puts the ball in the endzone is B1 carrying the ball across the goalline which is the purpose of the mometum exception. Without the exception, the result of the play would be a safety.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

Here are the arguments in my head:
1. If he ran to the one and fumbled it back its a safety/touchback, so when the fumble left the end zone the momentum exception was cancelled, and the force is either the fumble or the muff of a grounded fumble.

I'm having a very difficult time following your post so I will address this.

The only force you need to consider is B1 carrying the ball across the goal line and into the endzone.

While the ball is in the endzone, no new force can be applied no matter what happens. The ball could be muffed 25 times, illegally kicked and batted in the endzone and the force that put the ball in the endzone would be B1 carrying the ball across the goal line.

As the Rule says, force is only a factor going INTO the endzone, so if B1 fumbles in the endzone, the ball is muffed by A in the endzone, the ball leaves the endzone what is your original force at this point? B1 carrying it across the goal line. If the ball rebounds back into the endzone, what caused the ball to go there? By rule it was B1 carrying it across because effectively, that muff by A did not happen because it was in the endzone.

After all of this, the mometum exception still applies for the reasons SouthGARef states.