NE vs Colts safety

[soundedlikeastrike]

Why was the punters feeble attempt at a throw not ruled an incomplete pass?

Even if a lateral or straight fumble, why a safety when NE knocked it through the end zone?

[APG]

Because by rule, the offense in this play is responsible for the impetus of the ball even with the defense batting the ball.

Rule 3, Section 16

IMPETUS
Article 3 Impetus is the action of a player that gives momentum to the ball and sends it in touch.

The Impetus is attributed to the offense except when the ball is sent in touch through a new momentum when the defense muffs a ball which is at rest, or nearly at rest, or illegally bats:

(a) a kick or fumble;
(b) a backward pass after it has struck the ground;
(c) or illegally kicks any ball (12-4-3).

[scrounge]

I think it was as simple as he never got the throw off, he raised up his hand to try to throw but the defender knocked it out of his hands before he could start the motion. Fumble out the back of the end zone - safety.

[MD Longhorn]

Because it wasn't a pass. Had this gone forward and out of the pile, it still would have been a fumble.

[BayStateRef]

Originally Posted by APG

Because by rule, the offense in this play is responsible for the impetus of the ball even with the defense batting the ball.

Rule 3, Section 16

IMPETUS
Article 3 Impetus is the action of a player that gives momentum to the ball and sends it in touch.

The Impetus is attributed to the offense except when the ball is sent in touch through a new momentum when the defense muffs a ball which is at rest, or nearly at rest, or illegally bats:

(a) a kick or fumble;
(b) a backward pass after it has struck the ground;
(c) or illegally kicks any ball (12-4-3).

I am trying to understand the rule in lay person's terms.

Let's say that long snap had gone over the punter's head...and came to rest (or near rest) inside the 5-yard line. A defensive player dives for the ball...and knocks it out of the end zone. That would be a touchback? New England ball on the 20, 1st and 10?

Or....same situation. The ball is bouncing at the 10-yard line, heading toward the end zone (it is neither at rest or nearly at rest), when the defense tries to pick it up, but muffs it and the ball goes through the end zone. Is that a safety or a touchback?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by BayStateRef

I am trying to understand the rule in lay person's terms.

Let's say that long snap had gone over the punter's head...and came to rest (or near rest) inside the 5-yard line. A defensive player dives for the ball...and knocks it out of the end zone. That would be a touchback? New England ball on the 20, 1st and 10?

Or....same situation. The ball is bouncing at the 10-yard line, heading toward the end zone (it is neither at rest or nearly at rest), when the defense tries to pick it up, but muffs it and the ball goes through the end zone. Is that a safety or a touchback?

In layperson's terms, if the ball ends up in your OWN endzone, it's either a safety or a touchback (generally a safety if it's your fault it ended in the EZ, a TB if it's the other team's) - very generally.

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.

{Edited because I got the teams backward!}

[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.