Question for all you referees or anyone?

**stupen** · October 5th, 2008, 03:00 PM

722 is right. I can't remember the high school rule, but in college the ball must either go over or inside the pylon for an airborne player to be awarded a TD (Rule 8-2-1-a). I'm pretty sure that the NFL does award a TD on plays where the ball goes over the goal line outside the pylon, as if the goal line does extend "around the world."

**1inStripes** · October 5th, 2008, 09:19 PM

I believe the NFL rule is that as long as part of the players body that is in possession of the ball crosses the goal line, inside the pylon it is a TD. I remember seeing a couple of plays where the player dove for the end zone out of bounds but touched the pylon with his bare hand that was near the pylon with the ball in the opposite hand and was awarded a TD.

**sup-rbeast** · October 6th, 2008, 09:44 AM

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: CIP Ref</div><div class="ubbcode-body">This is a touchback at all levels of football (hs, NCAA, and NFL). The college rule is 8-6-1-a. It doesn't matter who touches the ball after it is fumbled, the attacking team is responsible for the ball being declared dead out of bounds in his opponents end zone (as was already mentioned, the pylon is out of bounds). The only way this can change would be if Team B (the defense) purposely batted the fumble. In this case, impetus changes and the result would be a safety.
</div></div>

Without the defense gaining possession in the end zone, you can't have a safety...a defensive penalty in the end zone isn't the same as an offensive penalty in the end zone.

**1inStripes** · October 6th, 2008, 12:06 PM

No,CIP ref is right, the defense can muff or bat the ball into the end zone without gaining possession and it is a safety, not a touchback.

**sup-rbeast** · October 6th, 2008, 12:41 PM

Not saying you're not right but I'd have to see an instance where a defense was charged a safety without first gaining possession to believe it.

**stupen** · October 6th, 2008, 01:20 PM

Here is your play......
A25 fumbles the ball at the 5 yard line. B40 bats the loose ball backward (legal because he batted it backward) and the ball hits the pylon. The impetus has changed (we use "impetus" in college, but the high school rulebook uses the word "force"--same thing). Team B is now responsible for the ball being dead behind the goal line, not Team A. Ruling---Safety. This is true in college and high school definitely. Not sure about the NFL rule.

**sup-rbeast** · October 6th, 2008, 01:30 PM

My question is how do you determine it was intentional batting?...On a fumble all kinds of crazy shiz happens..and if team A is on the 5, why would a defensive player be intentionally batting the ball towards the goal line he's trying to defend...the whole reasoning makes no sense to me.

**1inStripes** · October 6th, 2008, 02:06 PM

Don't use reasoning, thats the first problem. You was a coach so I am sure you have seen players do unreasonable things. The situation is still true. Say that player on B is trying to bat the ball away from player A who is trying to recover the fumble and bats it and it hits the pylon or rolls out of bounds in the end zone. It is still a safety. Same as if B trys to pick up the ball but drops it and another B player recovers it then in the end zone. It is a safety because B forced the ball into the end zone.

Heres one I wasn't aware of till Friday.

Team A attempts and extra point. There is a bad snap and A runs for the end zone. A then fumbles the ball short of the end zone. B then muffs the ball into the end zone where it rolls out of bounds. What is the ruling?

**stupen** · October 6th, 2008, 02:17 PM

It's very obvious when a player intentionally bats a ball vs. muffing it. Like 722 said, it doesn't matter why he did it. I'm just telling you the rule. I like 722's example about a B player recovering the fumble and then fumbling it himself. Same result. It is a matter of who is responsible for the impetus (college) or force (high school).

**sup-rbeast** · October 6th, 2008, 02:18 PM

On an attempt to go after a loose ball, I still can't think of many senarios where an illegal batting would be called....unless it was to bat it towards the opponent's goal line...

As for your question, I'd say point no good cuz D never possessed the ball...but who knows. I do know at Appy the other night the officials were atrocious. One clearly incomplete pass called a TD, one instance where Appy would have ended up with an extra down inside the 10 had they not scored on 3rd (which should have been 4th) down and SP being granted 4 TOs in the 2nd half..lol