NE vs Colts safety

[ajmc]

The appropriate NFHS Rule reference is 7-5-1, "Responsibility for forcing the ball from the field of play across a goalline is attributed to the player who carries, snaps,passes, fumbles or kicks the ball, unless a new force is applied to a grounded backwardspass , kick or fumble. The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not considered a new force".These exact definitions are repeated in NFHS 2-13-2 & 3.

NFHS: 2-13-1 advises, "Initial force results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap. After a fumble, kick or backwards pass has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff.

The fumble by the punter was not grounded, and although the muff by NE redirected the ball, the initial force created by the fumble had not ended and was therefore responsible for the ball exiting through the EZ.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

This is completely incorrect.

8.5.2 SITUATI0N C: K1's punt is blocked on K's 5-yard line and the ball is
slowly rolling near the goal line. R1 attempts to recover and just barely touches
the ball. The ball then rolls into the end zone where K2 falls on it. RULING: The
covering official will have to judge whether or not a new force resulted from R1's
touch. The covering official must decide whether the original force was such thatthe ball could have gone into the end zone regardless of the muff. lf the covering official has doubt, he will rule that the force was supplied by the kick, thus resulting in a safety. lf the covering official rules R1 supplied the force, it is a touchback

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

8.5.2 SITUATI0N C: K1's punt is blocked on K's 5-yard line and the ball is
slowly rolling near the goal line. R1 attempts to recover and just barely touches
the ball. The ball then rolls into the end zone where K2 falls on it. RULING: The
covering official will have to judge whether or not a new force resulted from R1's
touch. The covering official must decide whether the original force was such thatthe ball could have gone into the end zone regardless of the muff. lf the covering official has doubt, he will rule that the force was supplied by the kick, thus resulting in a safety. lf the covering official rules R1 supplied the force, it is a touchback

Maybe it's just me, but I generally think applying NFHS caseplays to NFL rules discussions can be a huge mistake.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Maybe it's just me, but I generally think applying NFHS caseplays to NFL rules discussions can be a huge mistake.

Yes, Mike, but I still believe that even in the NFL, a judgment would need to be made. Suppose the ball is rolling or bounding at the 5-yard line parallel to the EZ. This ball is never going into the EZ on its own. A team B player muffs the ball in an attempt to recover, and the ball goes OOB behind the GL.

Are you saying that the NFL ruling is always a safety?

[APG]

Originally Posted by CT1

Yes, Mike, but I still believe that even in the NFL, a judgment would need to be made. Suppose the ball is rolling or bounding at the 5-yard line parallel to the EZ. This ball is never going into the EZ on its own. A team B player muffs the ball in an attempt to recover, and the ball goes OOB behind the GL.

Are you saying that the NFL ruling is always a safety?

This is a safety in the NFL and I've seen this situation play out.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

This is a safety in the NFL and I've seen this situation play out.

I still think there might have been a judgment involved. Keep in mind the NFL does more video and more training to get more consistency. At the NF level or most states, this is what we are left with as a way to make a judgment for the most part. I have never seen a play where I even had to make that kind of determination.

I am not disagreeing that the NFL might have a standard, just thinking their overall philosophy is not much different than what has been stated at the NF level.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

Yes, Mike, but I still believe that even in the NFL, a judgment would need to be made. Suppose the ball is rolling or bounding at the 5-yard line parallel to the EZ. This ball is never going into the EZ on its own. A team B player muffs the ball in an attempt to recover, and the ball goes OOB behind the GL.

Are you saying that the NFL ruling is always a safety?

I'm saying it. APG is saying it. The NFL has said it on numerous occasions. The rule in question is quoted above - at rest or nearly at rest is the standard for ruling a new impetus... "never going on the EZ on it's own" is not. The only judgement in play in the NFL is whether the ball is nearly at rest or not. They don't have to decide whether it would or would not go into the EZ as you would in NFHS.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm saying it. APG is saying it. The NFL has said it on numerous occasions. The rule in question is quoted above - at rest or nearly at rest is the standard for ruling a new impetus... "never going on the EZ on it's own" is not. The only judgement in play in the NFL is whether the ball is nearly at rest or not. They don't have to decide whether it would or would not go into the EZ as you would in NFHS.

That is the language used in the NF and NCAA basically. And that would require judgment by the official to make that determination. This is not what I would consider a rules difference between levels.

Peace

[APG]

Have you not seen a situation in an NFL game where a back will fumble the ball...the ball is rolling forward (toward B's end zone), B attempts to recover the loose ball and in the process, knocks the ball forward toward A's endzone...and ultimately, the ball goes out of A's endzone?

That's a situation where the ball would never have gone into A's endzone as the ball was rolling forward, but the ball is muffed by the defense into B's endzone...the result will be a safety still (in the NFL).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

Have you not seen a situation in an NFL game where a back will fumble the ball...the ball is rolling forward (toward B's end zone), B attempts to recover the loose ball and in the process, knocks the ball forward toward A's endzone...and ultimately, the ball goes out of A's endzone?

That's a situation where the ball would never have gone into A's endzone as the ball was rolling forward, but the ball is muffed by the defense into B's endzone...the result will be a safety still (in the NFL).

And the result by interpretation is the same at the other levels.

But the reality I cannot imagine many times where a ball is just sitting there and no one is going after it to the point this call will be made.

Peace

[APG]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And the result by interpretation is the same at the other levels.

But the reality I cannot imagine many times where a ball is just sitting there and no one is going after it to the point this call will be made.

Peace

Agreed

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by APG

Have you not seen a situation in an NFL game where a back will fumble the ball...the ball is rolling forward (toward B's end zone), B attempts to recover the loose ball and in the process, knocks the ball forward toward A's endzone...and ultimately, the ball goes out of A's endzone?

That's a situation where the ball would never have gone into A's endzone as the ball was rolling forward, but the ball is muffed by the defense into B's endzone...the result will be a safety still (in the NFL).

I agree at NCAA and NFHS as well. A great point was made earlier there is no language anywhere stating we have to judge if the ball would have gone into the end zone without the muff.

Think of it like "it's a kick, it's a kick, it's a kick". It's A's impetus until it's not. The "not" conditions are an illegal kick, illegal bat, muff of a grounded scrimmage kick beyond the NZ, or muff of a fumble at rest or nearly at rest (remembering these off the top of my head so may not be 100% complete). Unless one of these happen the impetus/force has not changed.

Another concept is "flawed play". In this example, A has a flawed play because they fumbled the ball, had a bad snap, had a kick blocked, etc. B has not flawed anything.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

I'm saying it. APG is saying it. The NFL has said it on numerous occasions. The rule in question is quoted above - at rest or nearly at rest is the standard for ruling a new impetus... "never going on the EZ on it's own" is not. The only judgement in play in the NFL is whether the ball is nearly at rest or not. They don't have to decide whether it would or would not go into the EZ as you would in NFHS.

Okey dokey. I'm really surprised that NFHS, with their adverseness to exceptions, hasn't also adopted this philosophy.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by CT1

Okey dokey. I'm really surprised that NFHS, with their adverseness to exceptions, hasn't also adopted this philosophy.

There are more exceptions than you realize in the NFHS rule book. They just don't always use the word "exception". Someone did a comparison between NFHS and NCAA on the different types of exceptions and the differences were not that great.

[ajmc]

Sometimes it can be very easy to forget, that football is sport played by people of vastly different ages, different physical attributes, differnt skills and different thinking abilities.

High School, and obviously Youth Football is played, essentially, by children with some exceptions for those who are older, more physically advanced and extraordinary athletes whereas Intercollegiate Football is played by young ADULTS, who were likely from the upper talent levels of HS or Youth programs.

The ultimate level, NFL, is played by ONLY superior athletes, in the best physical condition who are full grown, committed men who and super talented to reach that level, so it really shouldn't be all that surprising that there would be different skill, talent and comprehension requirements for each progressive level.

Often many of the problems attributed to HS, or Youth football, are caused by totally ridiculous expectations rather than poor performance.