Was the Safety Scored by Seattle a Touchback?

Jan 7, 2007 | ML/NJ

[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

[SoothingDave]

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?

I'm totally clear on what happened. Your point is moot. He could have fumbled from the 50 yard line, but if the ball was never possessed by either team after the fumble and it went out of bounds in the end zone, it would be a safety.

Second, I never suggested that the touchback rule makes sense. (I don't even like the more usual touchbacks.)

It makes perfect sense to me. What would you have the rule be?

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.

Clearly, you havent' thought about how easy it would be to "fumble" the ball in a particular direction.

You totally miss the point. Think about what is fair and what is right and what is a mockery of fair play.

If I am the offensive team and I'm driving toward the goal line and I fumble it out of the end zone, should I be rewarded two points? And get the ball back?

No, that's silly. You screwed up. You fumbled the ball away. The other team takes possession on the 20.

Likewise, if I am on offense "in the shadow of my own goalposts," and I lose control of the ball in the end zone, what should I do?

If I jump on the ball, it's a safety. If my opponent gets it first, it's a touchdown for him. Why would it going out of bounds mean no one scores and I get advanced to my own 20 to start again?

It's nonsensical.

SD

[Hatteras]

"(Just as they didn't consider whether Romo got a first down, or fumbled, after the botched field goal attempt.)"

Romo did not reach the first down marker with his lunge toward the goal line after the muffed field goal attempt and the ball did not come out until his body hit the ground. He may have reached the original line of scrimmage but he was well short of the first down marker.

The only questionable call was what was that linesman thinking when he spotted the ball on the previous play. Fortunately for the Seahawks, it was reviewed and moved back setting up the field goal attempt.

[Ditto]

The quotes I cited both would indicate that this was not a safety, and that this was a touchback.

Wrong. A touchback can only happen on a change of possession -- kickoff, punt or fumble into the opponent's endzone recovered by opponent.

This was a fumble into his own endzone that went out of play... therefore a safety.

[SoCal Pubbie]

You are correct. From http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/definitions:

"Impetus: The action of a player that gives momentum to the ball."

For the purposes of this rule, the action that gave momentum to the ball is the runner losing possession, not the defensive player knocking it loose. The motion of the defensive player would have occurred even if the Dallas man held on to the ball. It was his reaction, losing his grip on the ball, that caused the fumble. The rule was interpreted correctly.

[discostu]

Actually it's easy to deliberately fumble out of bounds with 100% garauntee that the other team wouldn't recover. It revolves around the lateral pass, as we saw in the Pats-Jets game. A pass backwards (lateral pass) is considered by the rules to be a stretch handoff, that's important because if it isn't caught that's a fumble (live ball) rather than an incomplete pass (dead ball). Subsequently if the rules were as you interpret then all a team backed up to their own endzone would have to do is have the QB throw at the back pylon, since the back pylon has to be behind the QB it would be a stretch handoff and therefore when nobody caught the ball it would be a fumble, a fumble that would go out of bounds. With the way the refs, correctly, interpretted the rules that's a safety, with the way you're trying to interpret them that would be a touchback.

[SoothingDave]

A touchback can only happen on a change of possession -- kickoff, punt or fumble into the opponent's endzone recovered by opponent.

Also, a fumble out of the opponent's end zone is a touchback.

[Ditto]

Correct... it's also a change of possession.

[ml/nj]

Actually it's easy to deliberately fumble out of bounds

Maybe. But if you deliberately fumble the ball out of bounds, or the QB throws it out of bounds HE is the one providing the impetus. In this case the impetus toward and over the goal line was provided by the Seattle player.

ML/NJ

[discostu]

Impetus always comes from the last possessor, not necessarily the last guy to touch it. In this play impetus came from Dallas, just like in any other fumble.

[al_c]

Yeah. Those guys need to quit hangin' out with each other.

[dfwgator]

Fortunately for the Seahawks, it was reviewed and moved back setting up the field goal attempt.

OMG if that call had stood could you imagine all the tin-foil conspiracies Seahawks fans would have had, when you combine that with the last SB.

[r9etb]

Or.... the play that was ruled a safety had NEVER, EVER, EVER been called before last night. In the entire history of football.

I've seen it called a few times.

[ml/nj]

For the purposes of this rule, the action that gave momentum to the ball is the runner losing possession, not the defensive player knocking it loose.

It's interesting to me that you give a cite for the definition of impetus and then reject that definition. If the fumbler who had position places the ball down on the ground so it is motionless, the ball has zero momentum. A player who dives for the ball and casues it to squirt away, even if he is on the opposing team, has given the ball momentum. He has provided the impetus.

ML/NJ

[r9etb]

OMG if that call had stood could you imagine all the tin-foil conspiracies Seahawks fans would have had, when you combine that with the last SB.

The refs were wretched in the last SB, but the Squawks nevertheless deserved to lose. Their clock management was absolutely horrible....

[ml/nj]

Impetus always comes from the last possessor

Do you have a cite for this, or is it just wishful thinking on your part? There would be no reason to consider "impetus" if it always meant possession.

ML/NJ

[SoCal Pubbie]

I did not reject the definition that I cited. I explained how the play fell within it. You're fixating on definitions apart from the rules. We are not talking physics. We're talking football. The impetus was the FUMBLE, not the defensive man swiping at the ball. It is clearly identical to the punt YOU cited. In both cases, the ball was forced backwards by the actions of the defensive team, but possession was last held by the offense. In both cases the ball went out of bounds in the offensive team's end zone, with possession last being held by the offensive side. In both cases the result is a safety.

Why can't you understand such a simple concept?

[SoothingDave]

Are you trying to argue that the rule, as written (or at least as given in digest form on the web), makes this play a touchback?

Or are you arguing that in a "fair" world with perfect "justice" the play should have resulted in a touchback?

I and others have given numerous reason why, in the realm of "fair" play, the play must be a saftey and not a touchback.

So are you just arguing about the technicalities of the rules and what "impetus" means?

Are you arguing the letter of the law or the spirit of football?

[ml/nj]

Why can't you understand such a simple concept?

Maybe I'm not as simple as you are?

ML/NJ

[ml/nj]

Are you arguing the letter of the law or the spirit of football?

The letter of the law. I've said that several times. I'm not sure it's "fair" either to award a safety to the defending team. Maybe if someone had thought about this, they would return the ball to the spot where the fumble occurred.

ML/NJ

[discostu]

You have to consider impetus because of punts in that rule which you sited. In the case of a punt the team is deliberately giving up possession, so from the point of the kick to the point of the catch possession is either neutral or belongs to the receiving team (largely depending on where in the field the ball is). Which makes who possesses a blocked punt somewhat confusing, thus they have to go with a different aspect of possession, that aspect being the attempt to move the ball forward, ie impetus. The punting team was the last team to attempt to move the ball forward, same thing holds with this fumble that bounced back, you can't be considered to be attempting to move the ball forward if you don't have possession (defenses are attempting to thwart forward movement, they don't own the ball so they can't move the ball), no possession no impetus. Seattle never had possession, so Seattle never applied impetus.

One must always keep in mind the disclaimer that appears at the beginning of any sport's rulebook about the use of the word "illegal". They're always careful to point out that "illegal" is an in-game term, not an indication of actually breaking some law in an actionable way. That holds for all words in a rulebook, the meaning in the outside world and the meaning in the book are often different. Impetus is another one of those words, in the NFL there is a strong artificial construct around the concept of impetus, it's not just a matter of Newtonian physics, it's about whose actions (the possessing team) are considered to be legitimate attempts to move the ball towards a defined goal (the opposite goal line).