I imagine this post itself is going to be fairly long so please excuse the length of this.

I am now working on learning as much about force as possible.

<b><u>Question 1</u>:</b>
I am having some difficulty understanding what the NFHS rulebook means by Rule 2-13-4b: Force is not a factor when a backwards pass or fumble is declared dead in the end zone of the opponent of the player who passed or fumbled, with no player possession.

Can someone give me a play situation that addresses this?


<b><u>Question 2</u>:</b>

3/25 @ A-7. A1 lines up behind center in shotgun formation. A55 snaps the ball the A1 and the ball rebounds high into the air after hitting A1 directly in the helmet. Just after the ball strikes the ground at the A-3, it takes a funny bounce away from A's goal line (so it is rolling forward), when B99 muffs tries to pick the ball up and muffs the ball back into A's endzone where A1 falls on the ball.

Ruling on this play?

I have a touch back. The new force from B put the ball in the end zone.

For some reason force throws me for a loop. If anyone can share a "common" sense approach to application of force I would appreciate it.

I am going to go with a saftey on play #2 - I think the muff by B does not create a new force.

As far as real life application on 2.13.4b. I am with you Mike

Mike,

See 8-2-1(c). Force is not a factor since it is a touchdown for A. The wording is identical in both places.Sounds strange but the backward pass would have to roll forward into B's end zone for this to apply.

Example:

1. A on the B-2. A45 fumbles the ball forward into B's end zone. For some unexplained reason, no one covers the ball. By rule, touchdown A.

2. Same play but B67 batsthe ball into his end zone. Again, no one covers the ball and it is declared dead. Touchdown A.

You'll NEVER see it.

I see now. I feel like a real pin head now. Thanks Steve!


What is your take on the play I posted? Can a new force be added to a grounded snap?

I guess I can think of one situation where this might actually occur.

A7 throws a backwards pass to A83. A83 muffs the catch, and the pass strikes the ground and rolls forward into the endzone. Neither team realizes that the pass was backwards. I guess that MIGHT be one of the few times a person could see this play. But your explanation makes perfect sense. Thanks again!

Jvander, on the play mentioned there has to be a new force applied to change the direction of the ball doesn't there? Or is this one of those defies all natural laws, but the rules say..... plays. In my mind the muff has to be a new force, but without the books I am not sure that a muff is recognized as a new force???

What is your take on the play I posted? Can a new force be added to a grounded snap?

The snap is considered a backward pass, so a new force can be added. This is one of those plays you have to see to decide if it is a safety or touchback.

Steved21, a muff qualifies in this case as a new force doesn't it?? I know a muffed kick that goes into the EZ, is not considered to have had a new force applied from the muff, but in this case I would say it does, unless the book specifically says a muff is not a new force period.....

Touchback, because the B player supplied the force that sent the loose ball into A's endzone, where A recovered.

Basically, force helps you figure out whether a ball that becomes dead in a team's end zone and in possession of that team is a touchback or a safety. Force determines who is responsible for putting the ball there. If the team in possession forced the ball into its own end zone, it's a safety; if the other team forced the ball in, it's a touchback.

Initial force is easy to determine. If a player on the team in possession carries, fumbles, kicks, passes or snaps the ball into his own end zone, he is responsible for forcing the ball there.

Example 1: A1 snaps the ball over the head of A2. It sails into the end zone, where A2 falls on it. A supplied the force that put the ball into the end zone (the snap), and is still in team possession, so it's a safety.

New force is a little bit trickier. A player can supply new force to a loose ball via a bat, illegal kick or muff, but only after the ball has hit the ground in the field of play.

Example 2: A2 takes the snap and passes backward to his left. Unfortunately for him, defender B1 has charged into the backfield, and he manages to bat the pass in mid-flight. The ball bounces at A's 2-yard line, then rolls into the end zone and knocks over a pylon.

Ruling: still a safety! Even though B1 batted the ball in the field of play, and caused it to roll back into the end zone, he did not technically supply a new force because the ball didn't touch the ground first. Therefore, A2 is still responsible for forcing the ball into the end zone with his backward pass. If the backward pass had hit the ground before B1 batted it, it would have been a touchback.

A muff can be a new force by rule2-13-2. Like I stated earlier, it's the type of play you have to see. It can go either way.

jfurdell,
Great explanation. That is what I thought but I couldn't put it to paper like you did.

Picking nits, but a new force <b>can</b> be added to a grounded kick that goes into K's end zone.

Force is not a factor on any kick that goes into R's endzone. It is always a touchback.

REPLY: Just my opinion...When A puts the ball on the ground near his own goal line, I want to make sure that he assumes as much risk as possible for it being there. Just "taking a funny bounce away from A's goal line" -- in my opinion -- is not a sufficient reason to relieve A of the responsibility for what might happen in the scramble to recover the loose ball. I'm much more inclined to <u>not</u> attribute a new force to B's muff in the play as Mike laid it out. For me, that ball better be "rocketing" away from A's goal line or be at rest for me to consider B's muff to be a new force. The whims of a bouncing football should not be enough to give A a cheap touchback when they put the ball on the ground deep in their own territory. Like others have said, you really need to see this play to properly rule, but as posted, I would be inclined to call this a safety (no new force).

Just a note...in NCAA rules for this play, the ball <b>must be at rest</b> for a new force (impetus) to be applied by player contact with the ball.

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.

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.

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

REPLY: My previous post was probably not all-inclusive. If the ball is at rest, <u>nearly</u> 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. <b>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?? </b> Again just my opinion based upon NF 2-13-1 which places the determination of a new force within the covering official's judgement.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by James Neil

Quote:

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.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by jfurdell

Quote:

[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

REPLY: That's exactly why I did not limit my thoughts to loose balls that are <b>at rest</b>--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.

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?

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 <u>less</u> 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. :)

May the force be with you...
 

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