Was the Safety Scored by Seattle a Touchback?

Jan 7, 2007 | ML/NJ

[Doohickey]

The crime in that game was overturning the first down that Witten caught. On booth review yet. There was no conclusive evidience (as required by the rules) that he was a foot short.

[SoCal Pubbie]

Cute.

What exactly is your point? If it's that the ruling was wrong, as in your initial post, I and a host of other posters have shown that a safety was the right call. I sense you've moved past that, and now you're arguing the rule was unjust. That may be your opinion, but it has no bearing on the matter of how the ruling should have gone forward.

[ml/nj]

I sense you've moved past that, and now you're arguing the rule was unjust.

Then you must have difficulty with the English Language. (See beginning with #12 and most recently at #72.)

ML/NJ

[SoCal Pubbie]

May we go back to the title YPU posted?

Was the Safety Scored by Seattle a Touchback?

The answer is NO!

[SoCal Pubbie]

Make that YOU posted!

[SoCal Pubbie]

Speaking of difficulty with the English language, the first example (not a rule, BTW) in your post no. 5 clearly indicates why the call was correct.

[ml/nj]

Like I said, difficulty with the English language.

(Ask me about my SAT scores sometime.)

ML/NJ

[SoCal Pubbie]

Why won't you address the arguments?

[garv]

I agree with you completely. When I initially watched the play my immediate reaction was an incomplete pass. When he placed the ball on the ground he had his hands on the side of the ball not under it, I've seen dozens of plays that are ruled incomplete for less.

[ml/nj]

Why won't you address the arguments?

Really. You have a problem. I think I have addressed arguments people have put forth. The bottom line is that the impetus that drove the ball into the endzone was supplied by a defender. There are no exceptions in the rules for fumbles as there are for punts. The rules for touchbacks and safeties both suggest that impetus is important. One would seem to indicate that the play could not be ruled a safety; and the other would seem to indicate that it must be ruled a touchback. In other words the two rules are consistent. I didn't make them up. I just read them.

ML/NJ

[Bloody Sam Roberts]

I've seen dozens of plays that are ruled incomplete for less.

The N.E. Pats had a play called back after review for the exact same thing. Player did not make a "football move" before the ball touched the ground...though he clearly had possession.

But I guess it all matters what the call by the refs is at the time. If the receiver for Dallas (T.O.?) had run for a touchdown, I'm sure it would have been reviewed for the possibility of an incomplete pass.

[SoothingDave]

No, you made no mistake.

My mistake was stating unequivocally that a fumbled ball is always spotted at the point it went out of bounds. This is true when it is fumbled backwards, but not when it is fumbled forward. I was correcting my overly general language, that is all.

[SoothingDave]

Isn't that rule a response to the Raiders and their repeated forward fumbles in a playoff game?

Yes. They famously "fumbled" the ball forward to another player on a 4th and goal situation for a touchdown. So now, on any 4th down, and on every down in the final two minutes of a half, only the fumbling player on the offense can advance the fumble.

[SoCal Pubbie]

By your rationale the example, which you cited, of a blocked punt, would be a touchback for the kicking team, yet it is not. Arguing that the guy blocking the punt has no "impetus" on the football, by your reasoning, is disingenuous. He clearly is forcing the ball, by his action, toward the goal line.

The issue here, as in the play this past weekend, is that possession has not been transfered from the offense to the defense. It is clearly an analogous situation. There cannot be a touchback when the defense has no possession of the ball. Despite the action of the defender, no transfer of possession has been established, hence it is a safety.

[ml/nj]

By your rationale the example, which you cited, of a blocked punt, would be a touchback for the kicking team, yet it is not.

You wear me out. I said the punter arguably is the one providing the impetus, and just in case anyone is confused the rules make it clear that he is to be considered the one providing the impetus. I never suggested that a blocked punt should result in a touchback.

Go take an English class. I'm done with you.

ML/NJ

[SoCal Pubbie]

Then what's the difference in the two examples?

[SoCal Pubbie]

I'm sorry. I really am. When I read your words, I did not understand them. I do have a problem with English, as you say

"On a punt (logically and according to rule) the momentum of the ball comes from the foot of the kicker. The ball just bounces off the blocker. Here the ball was intentionally knocked out of the receiver's grasp toward the receiver's goal line by the defender. The receiver and the ball were barely moving at the time the ball was dislodged."

Obviously that means the impetus did not come from the defensive player, but the punter. Mea culpa, mea culpa.

[discostu]

First Chiefs-Chargers game of the year had that, punt got blocked but the blocker didn't make it past the line of scrimage. The line of scrimage is when a punt stops belonging to the kicking team, so technically it wasn't a block but a failed catch, kicking team recovered, so they got the ball back with a fresh set of downs. The possession question can often be very confusing.