Fed test question:
 

This is paraphrased:

K1 punts the ball out of his own end zone. R1 muffs the kick in flight beyond the expanded neutral zone. The ball caroms back into K's end zone where K1 jumps on the ball and it is downed there. Ruling?

What's your guess and why?

Reviewing the rule 8-5-2b makes we want to say safety, however the fundamental statement (Page 80, Section II, No. 3) makes me want to go touchback for K. They seem contradictory.

Well... one of your two options is correct. :)

Read 8.5.1 Situation C

Yeah I get that. But haven't we just made a fundamental statement not so fundamental?

Which one?

Page 80 in the rule book. Section II, No. 3

To elaborate:

Was R first to touch a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone? Check
Was a new series awarded to the team in possession at the end of the down? Oops

Here's my take on it...
By all my instincts I would say touchback. However, a key element here is that unless a scrimmage kick has been grounded a "muff" does not add a new force. (2.13.3 pg 28.) Therefore, in this situation, regardless if the kick was first touched by R (muffed in the OP) beyond the NZ no new force is added and therefore it would be a safety.

Example 9-44 2012 Redding study guide page 126

"Punter K10 is standing in his own end zone when he kicks the ball. it crosses the nuetral zone, strikes either R45 or K63 in flight in the helmet and rebounds into the end zone. Ruling. Safety in either case. It doesn't matter which player touched the ball. the initial force is from the punt, and a new force cannot be applied while the ball is in flight."

And then we ask, what if the same kick is recovered by K on their one yard line instead of the EZ? I am thinking since we don't have a ball going into the EZ force is not a factor and then it would be 1/10 for K from their one since R was first to touch punt beyond NZ.

I agree with all of that whitehat, but have we not still violated a football fundamental? I dont believe it belongs as a fundamental if there are exceptions to its rule

There may well be a contradiction.

But if you want to get the question correct, you'd better answer "Safety and 2 points for R." :)

I do not believe the fundamental was intended to apply in this situation. This isn't the first time the Fed has done something of this nature. I look at the Fundamentals like rules of thumb, good to follow but you need to have a holistic view of the rules to apply them properly.

Without looking at the fundamentals, it is clear that this is a safety due to the kick being the force that places the ball in K's end zone. If the rules all line up, do not sweat the fundamentals in this case.

plus casebook play 8.5.1 sit c is word for word on this ruling.:rolleyes:

I agree with everyone that it is a safety without consideration of the fundamental. That is pretty obvious.

However, this is the first time I've ever encountered a contradiction to a fundamental statement. Can anybody cite others?

Which fundamental are you concerned about? #3 under Downs? Another example where this isn't absolutely true is if R possesses it (thus touching it), fumbles, and K returns it for a TD. A new series is not given to K.