Interception on EZ

[whitehat]

Here is another "force" situation for us to discuss:

B1 intercepts in own EZ. While scrambling around in EZ and before being tackled there, B2 blocks A2 in the back in EZ. What is the enforcement and from where?

[Welpe]

The force that put the ball in the endzone is A's pass so the result of the play is a touchback. This makes the basic spot is the B-20. The foul was behind the end of the run so using all but one you enforce from the spot of the foul which is the end zone. The penalty being accepted results in a safety.

[whitehat]

Welpe, I agree its a safety but this is one that I don't like, especially since B did not put the ball in the EZ. Seems more fair to bring it out to the 20 then penalize them back 10 for the foul...but we don't make the rules...

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by whitehat

Welpe, I agree its a safety but this is one that I don't like, especially since B did not put the ball in the EZ. Seems more fair to bring it out to the 20 then penalize them back 10 for the foul...but we don't make the rules...

The force is not the issue. It is the fact the foul took place in the EZ is the main issue. The same result would have taken place if the ball was intercepted at the 2 and Team B BIB during the runback. And this is such a rare situation that it would be wrong to make the rule special for this situation as opposed to any other penalty committed by the team with the ball which would result in a safety as well. I would not change the rule if I had a chance. And pretty much the case in every code too (as far as I can tell).

Peace

[whitehat]

I agree JR, the force is not the issue by rule here but in every other situation like it force is the issue as it would be and in fact is a touchback...until the foul occurs...so just seems inconsistent to me as B did not put the ball in the EZ but they are being penalized as if they did...

In the case of the interception at the 2, all things the same, I think it would be more consistent with the fundamental defintion of force dictated by who puts it in the EZ (A in both cases) to bean bag the 2 and penalize from there half the distance to the 1, 1/10 for B
...just my opinion.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by whitehat

I agree JR, the force is not the issue by rule here but in every other situation like it force is the issue as it would be and in fact is a touchback...until the foul occurs...so just seems inconsistent to me as B did not put the ball in the EZ but they are being penalized as if they did...

In the case of the interception at the 2, all things the same, I think it would be more consistent with the fundamental defintion of force dictated by who puts it in the EZ (A in both cases) to bean bag the 2 and penalize from there half the distance to the 1, 1/10 for B
...just my opinion.

The penalty is not about the force or who put the ball in the EZ. The penalty is about that a penalty was caused by the team in possession of the ball in the EZ they are defending. You are complicating the issue by using force as the issue, when honestly it is not a factor in why this is a safety. It would be a TB if the ball was dead there, but not the reason you have a safety on the penalty. If you change the rule for this part, you would have an inconsistent application in the rules that would not apply to other parts of the game. I think the rule is perfectly fine at all levels.

Peace