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
"but while he was trying to secure posession and complete football move"
No. look again at the film. He caught the ball and had already made a football move (took a step to try and avoid the tackle) before he fumbled.
We can't do that without a fuller understanding what the NFL means by "impetus." It's not the same thing as physics class where a change in momentum means the object changes speed and/or direction.
A blocked punt changes speed and direction, but the NFL does not consider the punt blocker to have provided "impetus" to the ball.
By analogy, a defender who punches the ball out of a player's arm does not provide "impetus" to it either. That would be my understanding of the NFL rule and this is how the rule was applied on Saturday. I trust the NFL to know its rules.
Surely if Dallas thought the rule was applied wrongly there would be someone other than you asking this question.
I'm not sure it's "fair" either to award a safety to the defending team.
Fumbled balls are downed at the point where they go out of bounds. That's the rule. It is applied the same way in the end zone. But being "down" in the end zone means a safety.
It's logically consistent, and I see nothing unfair in having consequences to screwing up around your own goal line. What you suggest is either two sets of rules: where a ball fumbled from the 10 yard line back to the 1 is spotted at the one, while a ball fumbled from the 9 yard line back to the goal line is spotted at the 9.
Or a general change whereby any backwards fumble is spotted at the point from which it was fumbled. That is, fumbles carry no penalty as long as the fumbling team recovers.
Either way, it seems an attempt to minimize the offensive team's risks and insulate them from their own poor ball-handling.
The first ruling was incorrect in the entire process. It wasn't a completed pass. Nothing after that should have counted.
The refs also blew the call on the ball spot on the other end of the field. They weren't right when they originally put it at the 1/2 yard line but they were equally wrong the other direction where the put it at the 1 1/2 yard line after the review. It should have been on the 1 yard line which would have been a first down.
And the rules specifically consider a punt. Why do you think they didn't do this with fumbles?
Fumbled balls are downed at the point where they go out of bounds.
Not true.
A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent’s end zone. In this case, it is a touchback. http://www.nfl.com/fans/rules/fumbleML/NJ
You think lots of things.
But maybe they are not always correct. I started going to Giants games when the Giants were playing in the Polo Grounds. I attended the '56 Championship game where the Gaints beat the Bears 47-7. I was there when Summerall kicked the 49 yard field goal in the snow against the Browns. (And I can tell you what the first play in that game was.) I know who Chris Schenkel and Johnny Lujack were, and why I might mention them here.
ML/NJ
Because it wasn't necessary, or because this is just a "digest" of the rules, not the complete canon. Let us cite the rules digest which talks of the punt:
Examples of Safety: (a) Blocked punt goes out of kicking team's end zone. Impetus was provided by punting team. The block only changes direction of ball, not impetus.
Note how it does not say that the punt blocker provides impetus to the ball, but that this is one given exception to the impetus rule. That is how you are treating it.
It says "the block only changes direction of the ball, not impetus."
Again, by analogy, a defender punching the ball out of a player's arm does not provide impetus. So the rest of your argument fails.
It all hinges on what "impetus" means, which is what I said in my first post.
Fumbled balls are downed at the point where they go out of bounds.
A fumble that goes forward and out of bounds will return to the fumbling team at the spot of the fumble unless the ball goes out of bounds in the opponent’s end zone. In this case, it is a touchback.
OK, my mistake. The point remains. The offense can not advance the ball by a fumble because we do not want to reward throwing the ball out of bounds. That makes sense. The offense can never earn yardage on a fumble (out of bounds).
You suggest that the offense shuld never be penalized yardage either. I fail to see why that should be the case.
A fumble is a tremendous screw-up. It should have consequences. Fumbling around your own end zone should have even higher consequences.
This is football, not a nanny state.
To bad, so sad! GO SEAHAWKS!
No. The ball, still belonging to Dallas, we downed in the end zone. Safety, 2 points and the ball to Seattle.
It would only have been a touchback if a Seattle player had gained possession of the ball, out of the end zone, and fumbled it into the end zone either out of bounds or recovered by Dallas.
The replays showed Romo clearly down by contact before the ball came out, and over a yard short of the first down mark. What was there to "consider"?
They would do this only if they ruled an illegal "batting" of the ball. If the movement of the ball is incidental to the attempt to recover it, then it's not "batting" and the ball is spotted where it goes out of bounds (unless the only player to touch it was the fumbler and the ball went forward, then it is returned to the spot of the fumble).
I know. Life isn't fair sometimes, and neither are the rules in football always fair.
ML/NJ
The tuck rule is a different story and the fact you can't advance a "muffed punt" is simply arbitrary. But fumbling away a safety doesn't bother me.
A game the last week of the season (Patriots/Titans?) game had an interesting version that truly was a bit confusing. A punt was blocked, but dribbled/bounced forward, where just after it crossed the line of scrimage, a defender tried to stop the balls path and batted the ball down towards the ground with his momentum carrying him away from the ball. Kicking team grabbed the ball and it was theirs. Had the defender slapped the ball before it had crossed the line of scrimmage, it would not have been recoverable by the kicking team, only downable.
It was REEEALLY close. Either call by the refs would have been legitimate - therefore I wouldn't quibble.
Then you haven't been paying attention.
He was at least a foot short of the one. Maybe a little more, but not quite as short as the refs put it. The second spot was certainly far closer than the first spot.
So you think. And maybe that's the problem.
ML/NJ
No, you made no mistake. The ball IS downed in the end zone in the example you gave. Since a ball that is downed out of bounds within the endzone is a touchback, the ball is rewarded to the other team at the twenty. Perfectly consistent.
Isn't that rule a response to the Raiders and their repeated forward fumbles in a playoff game? (Just an aside. I seem to recall that game.)
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.