Posted on 01/07/2007 1:35:07 PM PST by ml/nj
Last night Dallas, in the shaddow of their own goal line through a pass which was completed at about the one yard line. A Seattle player knocked the ball out of the receiver's hands towards and into the endzone. It was initially ruled that the ball was recovered by Seattle before it went out of bounds and so it was a Seattle Touchdown. Upon video review the refs (and everyone else) saw that the ball went out of bounds before it was recovered, and so it was ruled a Safety, two points for Seattle.
Should this play have been rulled a touchback and Dallas given the ball on their 20 yard line?
The announcers, oblivious to everything not whispered into their ears by someone in the production truck, didn't consider this at all. (Just as they didn't consider whether Romo got a first down, or fumbled, after the botched field goal attempt.)
I did a little searching that would seem to suggest that the play should have been ruled a touchback. http://www.footballbet.net/rules.html
Touchback: When 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 or a missed field goal.http://football.calsci.com/TheRules2.html
So now that the refs were on Seattle's side, will they stop whining now about last year's Super Bowl?
LOL - next you'll see the "Soreloserman Cowboy" logo posted.
I don't understand why you're saying that. Can you explain further?
I'm from Seattle and I'm not sure we even deserved to win the game.
But I'm pretty sure about one thing.
We're gonna get our clocks cleaned next week against Chicago.
ML/NJ
I see where you're coming from, but I think your interpretation of the rule is mistaken. But certainly I'm not expert...
Let me know where I'm getting this wrong. I think you really mean you hope my reading of the rules here is wrong.
ML/NJ
PS I loved the cordiality shown to me on my one visit to State College.
At this point it isn't a matter of hoping. I really do think it's wrong. But as I mentioned earlier, I'm not an expert. It's a very interesting question - I wonder if there's someone we could send it to that could provide the definitive answer?
PS I loved the cordiality shown to me on my one visit to State College.
Great pics. It really is a fantastic place to watch a game. Although I didn't travel there, I understand that Nebraska also extends quite a cordial welcome to opposing teams' fans.
You can't make that claim against the city that's mastered victimhood!?
What a heartbreaking loss. Oh well ... maybe next year Romo will wear gloves so he can grip the ball.
I don't think you understand. The ball was knocked into the endzone by a Seattle player. Therefore it cannot be a safety.
ML/NJ
I disagree. Looks to me like the ball went into the endzone when it was fumbled by the receiver.
ping
Your argument seems to hinge on the meaning of "impetus." If a blocked punt, which clearly changes the direction and destination of a ball can be considered to not change the "impetus" of the ball, then it is little different that a defensive player stripping an offensive player of the football likewise does not change its "impetus."
It makes little sense for a team who fumbles the ball out of their own end zone to be rewarded a touchback and a "do over" from better field position. Otherwise, this would be a common strategy.
Your opponent downs a punt on your 1 yard line? No problem, just fumble the ball out of bounds on your first play and resume with a new set of downs from your 20.
SD
If a Seattle player had somehow gained true possession at the 1-yard line and then fumbled it again into the endzone it would have been a touchback. Since no Seattle player ever had possession, it was a safety.
Romo caught the drop disease from T.O.
First, Dallas didn't fumble in their end-zone. The receiver was clearly out of the end-zone. Maybe if he was on his own ten (instead of the one) this would be clearer to everyone. The ball was knocked out of the receiver's hands by a Seattle player. Can you imagine having a safety called if the Dallas guy was on his ten, or twenty?
Second, I never suggested that the touchback rule makes sense. (I don't even like the more usual touchbacks.)
Third, it won't likely become a strategy to fumble at ones own one yard line as there is at least a 50-50 chance any such fumble will be recovered for a TD.
ML/NJ
Do you have any link to support this? Clearly this isn't true logically.
ML/NJ
In NFL terms "impetus" comes from the last team that had full possession of the ball, not the last team to touch it. That's why in a punt "impetus" comes from the punter.
The basic reality is simple, when a fumbled ball bounces out of bounds possession goes to the last team that had it at the point where the ball crosses the line. Basically the boundary is considered a 12th for whichever team last had possession, when the boundary "gets" the ball it goes to that team. When a team starts a play with possession of the ball ends that play with possession in their own endzone it's a safety (except for certain incredibly convoluted possibilities that involve at least two turnovers and are outside the scope of discussing this play). Dallas started with possession, fumbled, neither team recovered the ball even momentarily before the ball went back into the endzone and then out of bounds, so the step by step result is thus: Dallas' ball at the spot the ball went out of bounds, oh that spot was in their own endzone, that makes it a safety. You're not going to get a free twenty yards for fumbling the ball and not recovering it with one of your 11 guys on the field, unless by some strangeness the ball bounces forward 20 yards before going out of bounds.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.