NE vs Colts safety

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

And to answer your specific question, yes - if Indi had provided the force that put the ball out of the EZ, NE would have the ball at the 20.

Thanks.

What about the second scenario (ball is not at rest when the defense muffs it and it goes through the end zone?)

[APG]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

Thanks.

What about the second scenario (ball is not at rest when the defense muffs it and it goes through the end zone?)

Your first situation would be a touchback...

Your second scenario, and the one you're asking about here would be a safety.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

Your first situation would be a touchback...

Your second scenario, and the one you're asking about here would be a safety.

Why the different ruling if the defense never gained possession in either?

[APG]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Why the different ruling if the defense never gained possession in either?

If the ball is at or nearly at rest, and the defense muffs (defined as touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession of it) the ball and sends the ball into touch into the opponent's endzone, they have provided the impetus which sent the ball into touch. And a touchback is defined as such:

A Touchback is the situation in which a ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line, provided the impetus came from an opponent and provided it is not a touchdown (11-6).

In the second situation, since the ball is not at or nearly at rest, even though the defense muffs the ball and send it into touch (into the endzone), the offense is still responsible for the impetus of the ball. As such, it would be a safety. And a safety is defined as:

A Safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line provided:

(a) the impetus (3-15-3) came from a player of that team;
(b) it is not a touchdown (11-2).

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by APG

If the ball is at or nearly at rest, and the defense muffs (defined as touching of a loose ball by a player in an unsuccessful attempt to obtain possession of it) the ball and sends the ball into touch into the opponent's endzone, they have provided the impetus which sent the ball into touch. And a touchback is defined as such:

A Touchback is the situation in which a ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line, provided the impetus came from an opponent and provided it is not a touchdown (11-6).

In the second situation, since the ball is not at or nearly at rest, even though the defense muffs the ball and send it into touch (into the endzone), the offense is still responsible for the impetus of the ball. As such, it would be a safety. And a safety is defined as:

A Safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team’s own goal line provided:

(a) the impetus (3-15-3) came from a player of that team;
(b) it is not a touchdown (11-2).

I guess if I were a smart-a$$ I would disagree with this rule and say it is not logical in my opinion, and therefore wrong.

But I'm not, so thanks.

[CT1]

Originally Posted by APG

In the second situation, since the ball is not at or nearly at rest, even though the defense muffs the ball and send it into touch (into the endzone), the offense is still responsible for the impetus of the ball. As such, it would be a safety. And a safety is defined as:

Not necessarily. The covering official would have to judge whether the ball would have gone into the EZ absent the muff. If so, safety. If not, TB.

[APG]

Originally Posted by CT1

Not necessarily. The covering official would have to judge whether the ball would have gone into the EZ absent the muff. If so, safety. If not, TB.

That's not what the rule says...and there is no case book play that says anything about having to make that judgement. If the ball isn't near or at rest...even if the defense muffs the ball when the ball probably wouldn't have gone into touch, impetus is still attributed to the offense.

A.R. 3.15 IMPETUS—BLOCKED PUNT—END ZONE

Fourth-and-10 on A7. A’s punt is blocked by B1. B2 muffs the ball at the A10, and the ball rebounds into A’s end zone where: a) A2 falls on the ball; b) A3 and B3 simultaneously recover the ball; c) the ball rolls over the end line.

Rulings:
a) Safety. (3-15-3)
b) Touchdown. (11-2-1, 3-15-3)
c) Safety. (3-15-3, 11-5-1)
NOTE: If A had recovered in the field of play, it would have been A’s ball, first-and-10.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by APG

That's not what the rule says...and there is no case book play that says anything about having to make that judgement. If the ball isn't near or at rest...even if the defense muffs the ball when the ball probably wouldn't have gone into touch, impetus is still attributed to the offense.

A.R. 3.15 IMPETUS—BLOCKED PUNT—END ZONE

Fourth-and-10 on A7. A’s punt is blocked by B1. B2 muffs the ball at the A10, and the ball rebounds into A’s end zone where: a) A2 falls on the ball; b) A3 and B3 simultaneously recover the ball; c) the ball rolls over the end line.

Rulings:
a) Safety. (3-15-3)
b) Touchdown. (11-2-1, 3-15-3)
c) Safety. (3-15-3, 11-5-1)
NOTE: If A had recovered in the field of play, it would have been A’s ball, first-and-10.

I cannot speak for the NFL, but the rule is very similar in the NF or NCAA when it comes to the covering official to judge if the ball at rest or nearly at rest would have gone to the EZ. Maybe the NFL has an interpretation that further makes when this is clear (mostly with video) how this is ultimately to be adjudicated. In my experience it would take a lot for a bad snap that is not moving very fast to consider a new impetus (or force) to change the result of the play.

Peace

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by CT1

Not necessarily. The covering official would have to judge whether the ball would have gone into the EZ absent the muff. If so, safety. If not, TB.

This is completely incorrect.

[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