Understanding Force

[mikesears]

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.

Question 1:
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?


Question 2:

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?

[cmathews]

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

[jvander]

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

[STEVED21]

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.

[mikesears]

Originally posted by STEVED21
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?

[mikesears]

Originally posted by STEVED21
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.

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!

[cmathews]

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???

[STEVED21]

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.

[cmathews]

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.....

[jfurdell]

Originally posted by mikesears
Question 2:

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?

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.

[STEVED21]

Originally posted by cmathews
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.....

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.

[cmathews]

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

[mikesears]

Originally posted by cmathews
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.....

Picking nits, but a new force can 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.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by mikesears

Question 2:

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?
[/B]

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 not 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 must be at rest for a new force (impetus) to be applied by player contact with the ball.

[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.