Goalline Situation

Warrenkicker · #1 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 12:47pm

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?

mikesears · #2 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 12:49pm

Quote:

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
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.

cmathews · #3 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 01:22pm

Safety

sm_bbcoach · #4 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 01:38pm

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

MD Longhorn · #5 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 01:45pm

Safety.

#6 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 02:56pm

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.

MD Longhorn · #7 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 03:03pm

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

Warrenkicker · #8 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 03:18pm

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?

MD Longhorn · #9 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 03:29pm

Touchback.

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

cmathews · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 03:59pm

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

Schultj · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 05:32pm

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.

lawref · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 08:57pm

Safety.

BktBallRef · #13 (**permalink**) Wed Sep 10, 2003, 11:56pm

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.

Warrenkicker · #14 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 11, 2003, 10:13am

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.

MD Longhorn · #15 (**permalink**) Thu Sep 11, 2003, 10:53am

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.