I am hoping to run this thread like a poll. I am interested in how you would rule on this play without quoting any rules or elaborating on your reasoning. Once we get some responses then I will give the ruling we made and we can have some discussion. Hope that works for everybody.

A has the ball on B-10. A ran the ball down to B-3 where A32 fumbled. The fumble rolled to B-1 and stopped. B34 failed to gain possesion but his muff caused the ball to roll parallel to the goal line. B66 then attemped to gain possesion at B-1 but failed and his muff caused the ball to go into the endzone where B24 recovered the ball while on the ground. What do you have on this play?

If EXACTLY as stated, I have a safety.

Safety

2 pts...YEA!
 

Given the play as shown, I feel this is a saftey.

Safety.

Before I answer, was B34 attempting to possess the ball when it became motionless, or after the ball was motionless?

If before it became motionless, then safety. If after the ball was already motionless, then A's ball on B's 1 yd line.

Actually, I believe that if B touched the ball before the ball became motionless, it's a touchback.

Well we are getting a good amount of responses. Now how about if we change a little of the information and see what everyone thinks.

A has the ball on B-10. A ran the ball down to B-8 where A32 fumbled. The fumble rolled to B-5 and will not be able to roll into the endzone but is still rolling. B34 failed to gain possesion but his muff caused the ball to roll parallel to the goal line. B66 then attemped to gain possesion at B-5 but failed and his muff caused the ball to go into the endzone where B24 recovered the ball while on the ground. What do you have on this play?

Touchback.

I'm curious now as to how the original play was ruled.

I still have a safety, the new force being B's muff puts the ball in the endzone, where they recover it...safety..in my mind anyway

I will say safety because the ball would have never reached the EZ on its own, the new force made it go there after rolling parallel.

Safety.

Safety.

Although, if a ball is at rest and no one is attempting to recover it, it's dead.

I've never seen that called though, except on a punt.

Well it looks like we have a concensus that it was a safety for both plays. That is right for both plays.

The actual play was the second one. The ball was fumbled and would not have reached the endzone. B muffed the ball twice trying to recover it and forced it into the endzone where they recovered. I was U that game and it all happened right in front of me. I ruled it as a safety. The defense's coach could have taken my head off. He had no idea how his team could have committed a safety when they never possessed the ball in the field-of-play. The basis for this ruling is covered by the definition of Force 2-13. The grounded fumble would not have by its momentum reached the endzone. B muffed the ball into the endzone and recovered it there.

I also sent this play to my state interpreter and he sent this back to me. "The key is "new" force. A ball in flight, either a kick or pass, cannot have a new force applied via a bat, muff. However, if a fumble or backward pass or kicked ball is at rest or nearly at rest or a grounded ball that is nearly at rest may have a new force exerted/applied as the result of a muff or bat. In the play you describe, if the official ruled that a new force was applied by B and that force put the ball into B's end zone and B was in possession when declared dead, a safety is the result. The key is whether or not a new force was applied and who applied that force."

When we saw the defense's coach the next week he still said that we had got it wrong until I handed him the ruling from the state.

Other officials in our area said that we should have ruled it a touchback because then neither team would have been upset. I disagree with that mentality because we are not out there to make everybody happy but to rule correctly on what actually happened.

Tell me then which part I am misinterpreting:

8-4-1: It is a safety when the ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line ... and the defending team is responsible for the ball being there.

8-6-1: It is a touchback when the ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line, ... and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there.

8-7-1: The team responsible for the ball being out of bounds behind a goal line ... is the team whose player carries the ball or imparts an impetus to it that forces it on, above or across the goal line.

8-7-2a: The impetus imparted by a player who ... fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball's progress in any direction EVEN THOUGH IT'S COURSE IS DEFLECTED OR REVERSED AFTER STRIKING THE GROUND OR AFTER TOUCHING A PLAYER OF EITHER TEAM.

And the reason I felt the 1st case was a safety, but the second a touchback is because of:

8-7-2b: Initial impetus is considered expended ... if the ball comes to rest and he (a new player) gives it new impetus by any contact with it.

The rules seem to be calling out that if the ball comes to rest, and is then hit - that new hit is considered new impetus. Why would the rule state that specifically, if the intent was for ANY hitting of the ball to be considered new impetus. If the ruling was supposed to be as you describe, 8-7-2b would have not said "if the ball comes to rest".

I would defer to your more experienced judgement, but from just the verbiage of the rules, it seems that case 2 should be a touchback. I don't know how one would adequately define "The fumble rolled to B-5 and will not be able to roll into the endzone but is still rolling." How do you know a ball will not be able to roll into the endzone unless it comes to a complete stop? A ball has a funny shape, and fields are not level.

First off I'm not sure where you are getting the rules you are quoting as Rule 8 under NF only goes to 8-5-4. Beside that the rules you are stating I would agree have the same basic premise of the ones in my book. As for how do you know if a ball won't reach the EZ it can be very easy sometimes. This was not a well manicured field and the grass was probably 3 inches tall. It was very obvious that the ball would not cover another 15 feet on its own but would have stopped in about 1 or 2 feet. Like I said before other officials said that we should have ruled touchback because neither team would have questioned that call.

NCAA rules - sorry. That's what I'm used to looking at.

Anyway, the rules don't require you to use ANY judgement on whether it will or will not reach the end zone, as it seems they are specifically written to separate a ball in motion from a ball that's stopped.

If you had to use judgement, then the call gets VERY squirrelly. What if the ball had the same speed as the one you had to rule on, but was on the 2 yard line. Same ruling? What about the 1 yard line? Where does it get iffy. But the rule, if I'm interpreting it correctly, takes the worry out of your hands. If it's stopped, it's one thing, if it's not then it doesn't matter how fast it's going or in what direction (or how many players it hits) - ALL impetus is charged to the fumbler.

Am I reading this wrong?

REPLY: Original play...safety. But VaASAump, how could you possibly have A's ball on B's 1??

Second play: also safety

And mbcrowder...it sounds like you're quoting NCAA rules ("impetus") and I believe everything posted in this thread is referring to Federation rules where it is not required that the ball be at rest for a new impetus/force to be applied.

Bob, it is my guess that he is referring to the ball being at rest with no one trying to gain possession. It is a stretch yes, because it appears that a is trying to gain possession, however if it is motionless with no one attempting to gain possession it goes to the team last in possession, in this case A at the 1.

Actually, no. In the case of no one trying to gain possession (for some bizarre reason), it's a dead ball.

However, I was referring to NCAA rules - which is what we use here. The question that began the thread did not specify, and I incorrectly assumed.

REPLY: That could be, but if there's a live ball sitting motionless in the field of play after a fumble or backward pass, I'm going to wait a l-o-n-g time. I'll need to see both teams walking away. That ball will need to have moss growing on it before I blow it dead. For a scrimmage kick, it's a different story.

REPLY: Mike, that's the same for Federation. I was really looking more at your choice of the word "impetus." I officiate with both codes.

Thanks, Bob. I was saying no to cmathews's supposition. You have it right - I was looking at NCAA.

The play as presented is a safety. The key to the play is this: As stated, A fumbled and the ball WOULD NOT HAVE REACHED THE EZ. B then attempted to recover and added a new force to a grounded fumble. When that new force put the ball into B's endzone where it became dead, you have 1 of two possible outcomes. If A recovers you have a touchdown, and if B recovers and does not advance the ball out of the endzone it is a safety.