Understanding Force

[James Neil]

Originally posted by stripes1977
In this situation we don't have any room to interpret. The action by B is definitely adding a new force to the ball because it is a grounded loose ball. This play is definitely a touchback, cheap or not.

I don't believe this is true my comrade in strips. The last sentence of NF 2-13-1 says “ After a backward pass, fumble or kick has been grounded, a new force MAY result from a bat, an illegal kick or muff“ (caps are mine). I think they used the word “may” as opposed to “will” to let us know we have “room to interpret”. Judgment call all the way. On this play I tend to agree with Bob M and wouldn't rule a TB unless the ball was "rocketing" away from A's goal or at rest.

[ABoselli]

What if its slowly rolling parallel to the goalline with no chance of making it to the endzone?

I'm all for interpreting rules. If it's bounding back towards A's goal and just as lumbering B79 bends over to try and secure it, it bounces into him, I'm ruling no new force. If 4 players all dive for it and it goes into A's endzone, I'm still going with the original force. But if it's clearly moving away from the goalline, even slightly, or rolling parallel, and B muffs it into A's end zone, that's a TB if A recovers or it becomes dead behind that goalline.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by ABoselli
But if it's clearly moving away from the goalline, even slightly, or rolling parallel, and B muffs it into A's end zone, that's a TB if A recovers or it becomes dead behind that goalline.

I'll agree with you here AB and say it is in your game....but it may or may not be in mine

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by ABoselli
What if its slowly rolling parallel to the goalline with no chance of making it to the endzone?

REPLY: My previous post was probably not all-inclusive. If the ball is at rest, nearly at rest, or rolling so that, short of violating the laws of physics, it has absolutely no way of returning to A's end zone, yes...I'd rule it to be B's force and award a touchback. But that's not the play that Mike posted and I was responding to that. In that play, the ball was "taking a funny bounce away from A's goal line." Absent B's muff and left to its own devices, it might just take another funny bounce back into A's end zone. My point is that, regardless of the direction the ball is currently moving, I'm giving the benefit of the doubt to B when there is enough inertia in the rolling ball to possibly put it back into A's EZ. When the ball is rolling loose near A's endzone whom should my judgement disadvantage, B, who muffs it in a scramble to legally recover the loose ball or A whose bad handling put it on the ground in the first place?? Again just my opinion based upon NF 2-13-1 which places the determination of a new force within the covering official's judgement.

[jfurdell]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Neil

Originally posted by stripes1977
I don't believe this is true my comrade in strips. The last sentence of NF 2-13-1 says “ After a backward pass, fumble or kick has been grounded, a new force MAY result from a bat, an illegal kick or muff“ (caps are mine). I think they used the word “may” as opposed to “will” to let us know we have “room to interpret”.

I think the word "may" is there simply because a bat, illegal kick or muff may or may not result in a new force. If the loose ball was already about to roll into the end zone, and B muffs it but it still rolls into the end zone, B's muff did not add a new force.

But in the play situation described, the ball was rolling away from the end zone, and B knocked it in there. B clearly did add a new force and by rule it's a TB.

It's true that individual cases need to be interpreted individually, but I don't think you should go to the lengths of applying an NCAA rule to an NFHS game just because you like the NCAA rule better.

[James Neil]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jfurdell

[i]

It's true that individual cases need to be interpreted individually, but I don't think you should go to the lengths of applying an NCAA rule to an NFHS game just because you like the NCAA rule better.

Where am I deviating to NCAA? To tell you the truth I haven't a clue as to what the NCAA ruling would be on this or any other play situation. I only study Fed and believe I’m well within the Fed code on my ruling for this play

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by jfurdell

It's true that individual cases need to be interpreted individually, but I don't think you should go to the lengths of applying an NCAA rule to an NFHS game just because you like the NCAA rule better.

REPLY: That's exactly why I did not limit my thoughts to loose balls that are at rest--the NCAA rule. I expanded my thoughts to those instances where I would feel confident that B's contact with the ball was the only plausible reason that the ball crossed the goal line and entered A's end zone.

[mikesears]

Let's change the play a little.

3/25 at A-7. A7 lines up in shotgun formation. A7 isn't anticipating the snap and it hits him hard in the chest at the A-1. The ball then clearly begins rolling back towards B's goal line. A-4, A-5, A-6. In his attempt to get to the loose ball, B99 accidentally kicks it through A's end zone.

What I am envisioning is a touchback. Thoughts on this?

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Mike, based upon your description, it sounds like you're saying that there's no way this ball is going back into A's endzone. In such a case, I'd agree with a ruling of TB though I'd really have to see it. All I'm trying to get across is that if the ball is just bouncing around out there, I'm less concerned with the direction it's bouncing than I am with the possibility it might just bounce back into A's endzone. Especially when A put the ball on the ground in the first place, I'm going to give B the benefit of the doubt.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: Mike, based upon your description, it sounds like you're saying that there's no way this ball is going back into A's endzone. In such a case, I'd agree with a ruling of TB though I'd really have to see it. All I'm trying to get across is that if the ball is just bouncing around out there, I'm less concerned with the direction it's bouncing than I am with the possibility it might just bounce back into A's endzone. Especially when A put the ball on the ground in the first place, I'm going to give B the benefit of the doubt.

I'm in complete agreement with your philosophy.

[Mike Simonds]

I need to consult with Yoda on this one...