Interception on EZ
 

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?

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.

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...:mad:

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

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

Don't forget that Team B screwed up by committing a foul in the end zone. It would be the same if they were on offense and committed a foul in the end zone behind the basic spot. They may not even put the ball in the end zone in that situation but by committing a foul there, the other team is going to be awarded a safety.

My thoughts exactly. I can understand having an issue with the penalty enforcement resulting in a safety, but this is not a force issue.

I can probably count on one hand the number of penalties I've enforced committed in the end zone resulting in a safety and none of them were after a change of possession.

Good thoughts gentlemen. Thanks for the feedback and opinions:D

But if it were under the same philosophy as fouls in the field of play, the result would be a distance penalty from that spot, which would still result in a touchback when it was the other team's responsibility for putting the ball behind the goal line.

What is the team protecting that end zone to gain by fouling when they're in possession of the ball there? They could prevent the runner's being tackled there. But if the tackle would've resulted in a touchback, why should the foul convert that to a safety?

The safety may result from the application of simple rules, but it's not equitable to penalize worse than the worst case scenario would've been for them (assuming no change of possession) had they not fouled.

Nailed it.

Nailed it.