Was that a safety?

Beyond the question of if it was a safety or not, I think this is an intentional new wrinkle in BB's gameplan (unless I'm missing other teams doing it all the time) just to make it hard on the opposing team. Whether it's the spin from a left-footed punter, choosing the wind at the coin flip, having the opposing D ready at the drop off a hat to sub all 11 players on 4th and 2, or now expecting line drive bouncing kickoffs, it has to be nerve wracking to coach/play against the man. Seriously, as a returner, would you want to be worried about catching knuckleballs every KO? Plus, I'm pretty sure Ghost can kick it into the stands just about every time if that was his MO.

There's something to be said for making the other team expend as much emotional energy as possible.

Ex-official Mike Pereira said on Rich Eisen's podcast today that the call was incorrect. That should have been ruled a safety. The rule has to do with a ball that is stopped or essentially at rest. Pereira said that ball was essentially at rest, i.e. all its impetus from the kick had stopped before it was driven into the end zone.

That play not being a safety is a flaw in the rulebook.

Section 17, "impetus is the action of a player who carries the ball or provides the force (i.e., a pass, kick, snap, or fumble) that causes a ball in the field of play to touch or cross a goal line. If a loose ball touches or crosses a goal line, the impetus is attributed to the team whose player passed, kicked, snapped, or fumbled the ball, unless an opponent:

a) muffs a ball that is at rest, or nearly at rest; or
b) bats a ball that has been kicked or fumbled; or
c) bats a backward pass after it has struck the ground; or
d) illegally kicks any ball (12-4-2)

Click to expand...

According to this rule impetus is on the kicking team unless an exception applies.

Exception A clearly applies

"Nearly at rest" describes the ball- therefore a muffed ball, therefore impetus is on the receiving team.

The explanation by the ref that the receiving team did not have "complete control of the ball" is simply not in the rules. This is a mistake, the rule is written correctly, the ref called it incorrectly.

If "complete control" were required the game of football would be changed.

Hazy said:

This one is just brilliant. in a 2008 game against the Bills, Leon Washington of the Jets was back deep to receive a kickoff when he noticed that the kick was a little sloppy and headed towards the sideline. Washington knew, like most people do, that if the kickoff went out of bounds before he touched it, the Bills would be given a penalty for kicking out-of-bounds. And he knew it would be a big penalty, too; out-of-bounds kicks give the receiving team their choice of the ball at the place where it went out, or at the 40 yard line (which is almost always better). So Washington prepared to let the ball sail outside of the white lines.
"

Click to expand...

This is interesting and I remember seeing this on another occasion in college, which apparently has the same rule.

However, it is incorrect that an Out of Bounds kick is put at the 40 or where it went out, whichever is better for the receiving team. The rule actually states that is is placed X yards from the kickoff...... which happens to be the 40....or where it went out of bounds, whichever is better for the receiving team.

Apparently even Belichick didn't know this rule against the ravens in the undefeated season. If you remember Brady punched it in with a few seconds left. This bozo had a temper tantrum and got 2 dead ball penalties - I think he threw the yellow flag in the stands or something?!



Anyhow the penalties are aggregated and Ghost kicked off from like from the other side of the half. Belichick had him sail it into the endzone for a touchback.

The truth is, the rule would have allowed Belichick to have Gost kick it out of bounds on purpose for better defensive field position than a touchback.

Should've been a Safety

bigcountry75 said:

I am a high school official and I can tell you the high school rule which I believe is the same as in the NFL. The kick isn't over until either the ball goes out of bounds, the ball goes 10 yards and is recovered by the kicking team or the receiving team gains POSSESSION of the ball. The play last night was a muff because the receiving team hadn't gained possession of the ball until it was in the end zone which means it is a touchback. So officially the kick didn't end until possession was gained by the receiving team in the end zone which means it is a touchback. I don't like the rule either but that's what it is and I believe the ruling on the field was correct.

Click to expand...

You're statement seems to contradict the rule that RLCarr posted.
With the Defense (receiving team) muffing the kick, the impetus is theirs.. Which means that falling on it in the end zone is a safety, not a touchback..

bigcountry75 said:

There are so many rules and exceptions to every rule that it is tough to comprehend the rulings sometimes. The ball being touched in the field of play doesn't indicate the end of the kick (which is the most important part of the ruling in this situation) for which the end of the kick was possessed in the endzone for a touchback. Now in your scenario that I quoted above if the player possesses the ball and runs back into the endzone then yes it would be a safety.

With that said for the people that are talking about hitting or kicking the ball into the endzone for a touchback instead of fielding it and avoiding terrible field position there is a rule for that. If the officials think that the batting or kicking was intentional then they can flag the receiving team.

Click to expand...

Thanks for the very clear explanation of a complicated rule. I thought for sure it should be a safety but it all makes sense now.

This reminds me of the day that the tuck rule was properly explained to me.

dales804 said:

My thing on this is the player was intentionally trying to pick the ball up and messed up. Just because it went into the end zone shouldn't erase that mistake. It doesn't make any sense.

Click to expand...

Agree 100%, with the rule the way it stands (er, the way it was called) the Colts were allowed to benefit from their own calamity. Definitely a bad call.

The more I watch that play the more I think it is possible that the Colt player did shovel the ball into the endzone on purpose,

bigcountry75 said:

If the ball was completely at rest and kicked into the endzone whether accidentally or purposely then the new force putting the ball into the endzone would cause it to be a safety.

Click to expand...

The rule applies to a ball "nearly at rest". Watch the replay. That ball is nearly at rest.

archstanton543 said:

The rule applies to a ball "nearly at rest". Watch the replay. That ball is nearly at rest.

Click to expand...

I agree with you.

I would note that many posters do not understand that the "nearly at rest" is the issue on which the decision was made. BTW, this was discussed on NFLN in the weekly discussion of referee calls. The referee judged that the ball was NOT nearly at rest. In that circumstance, it is a touchback, by rule. Also, this judgement is not revueable.

Bobsyouruncle said:

According to this rule impetus is on the kicking team unless an exception applies.

Exception A clearly applies

"Nearly at rest" describes the ball- therefore a muffed ball, therefore impetus is on the receiving team.

The explanation by the ref that the receiving team did not have "complete control of the ball" is simply not in the rules. This is a mistake, the rule is written correctly, the ref called it incorrectly.

If "complete control" were required the game of football would be changed.

Click to expand...

B would also apply:
b) bats a ball that has been kicked or fumbled;