You make the call..

My wife asked me why Butler took the ball out of the end zone last night instead of just going down and getting the touchback. I explained to her that it looked like that Butler's feet both came down outside the end zone and the ball was outside the end zone when he made the interception. And that if he'd gone down in the end zone, it would have been a safety..

That being said, the replay's I've looked at make it awfully close to whether the ball was in the end zone or not when Butler got control..

Was my explanation correct? That if Butler had gone down it would have been called a safety?

Hmm good question, too close for me to call. I'm not an expert like a lot of the guys here

I think it would have been a touchback, but Butler did the right thing. Better safe than sorry.

My take was that with a bang-bang play on the goal line he couldn't be sure whether he'd stepped out of the endzone and back in again, so the safest thing was to go forward.

DaBruinz said:

My wife asked me why Butler took the ball out of the end zone last night instead of just going down and getting the touchback. I explained to her that it looked like that Butler's feet both came down outside the end zone and the ball was outside the end zone when he made the interception. And that if he'd gone down in the end zone, it would have been a safety..

That being said, the replay's I've looked at make it awfully close to whether the ball was in the end zone or not when Butler got control..

Was my explanation correct? That if Butler had gone down it would have been called a safety?

Click to expand...

He probably wasn't aware exactly where he was and just reacted instinctively by moving forward. I thought it was funny how Hightower pushed him down to protect against fumbling. And seeing the other guys sprint off the field with their arms raised was great.

I'm honestly not sure.

If I understand the rules correctly—and I'm not certain I am—if Butler made no attempt to advance the ball, and his momentum carried him into the end zone, then impetus would remain with the offense, and it would be ruled a touchback.

But if he made a move forward before retreating into the end zone, then it would be a safety if he went down inside the end zone.

Butler looked inside to me. Moving the ball a step before getting down also makes it a catch. In case of a fumble, the Patriots would have yet another chance to recover a turnover. With an incomplete pass, the play stops and the clock stops. Also, a safety* would result in a kick with a chance for Seattle to recover.

Nobody has pointed out that not only did Butler beat the receiver to the ball, but he also had to take a step to make it a catch, get out of the end zone to avoid a kick, and hold onto the ball the entire time.

*Actually if he never left the end zone that would be a touchback.

My take? Looking at the replay, I think he intercepted the ball just outside the end zone and his momentum carried him into the end zone. That is neither a safety nor a touchback. According to the letter of the book, had he been downed in the end zone, the ball would have been returned to the spot of the interception, around the half yard line.

In the end, he made the right call. Though, hats off to Brady and the Oline for getting Bennett to jump offsides and give them some room.

I had posted the same observation i nanother thread (about in or out) and I do know he had feet (after or during the catch) where his feet in the field of play/out of the endzone.

Momentum.

he got the int, we were up 4.

I was saying to a friend all the pats had ot do was have brady pooch punt it since there was 20 seconds left, pooch punt would have caught them completely off guard.

ctpatsfan77 said:

I'm honestly not sure.

If I understand the rules correctly—and I'm not certain I am—if Butler made no attempt to advance the ball, and his momentum carried him into the end zone, then impetus would remain with the offense, and it would be ruled a touchback.

But if he made a move forward before retreating into the end zone, then it would be a safety if he went down inside the end zone.

Click to expand...

I think you are right. Another factor is if he has possession. For example, if he made contact at say the 1/2 yard line and he was bobbling it but was driven back into the end zone, it would be a touchback.

Either way, other than it being a touchback it was the best possible outcome. If he knocked it down it would have stopped the clock and SEA then runs it w/ still that one timeout left.

14 or so hrs later and I still can't believe it. I watched that replay at least 50 times. Doesn't get old. Never will.

Galeb said:

I think it would have been a touchback, but Butler did the right thing. Better safe than sorry.

Click to expand...

Yep, don't take a chacne especially when all you have to do is kneel the ball.

chasa said:

Momentum.

he got the int, we were up 4.

I was saying to a friend all the pats had ot do was have brady pooch punt it since there was 20 seconds left, pooch punt would have caught them completely off guard.

Click to expand...

Maybe but it seems too risky. If the snap is muffed and TB takes the safety then it's 28-26 and a free kick and SEA gets to run it back, quick throw, burn the timeout and have a long FG attempt.

If SEA didn't get the offsides penalty he best play was a Brady burrow play behind The Stork and DC.

I want to reiterate that a defensive player's momentum after an interception taking the ball into the end zone results in neither a safety nor a touchback. See here for explanation: http://www.nfl.com/rulebook/safety2

The ball is returned to the spot of interception. The rule on this is unambiguous. The question is entirely over which of these four scenarios occurred:

1. He intercepted the ball outside the end zone and his momentum brought him into the end zone. Down at the spot of the interception.
2. He intercepted the ball inside the end zone and did not bring it out of the end zone. Touchback.
3. He intercepted the ball inside the end zone (or his momentum took it into the end zone), brought it outside the end zone, and then brought it back into the end zone under his own volition. Safety.
4. He intercepted the ball outside the end zone and made a decision to move the ball backwards into the end zone. Safety.

Choose one of those four scenarios and you know what call should have resulted from it.

I'm fine with the call that Butler made. By taking it out, he didn't give the refs a chance to **** everything up.

He definitely caught it outside the endzone then ran backwards into the endzone then forwards out of it.

It looks like it was his momentum and the hit on Lockette that cause him to go back into the endzone

pwes said:

He definitely caught it outside the endzone then ran backwards into the endzone then forwards out of it.

It looks like it was his momentum and the hit on Lockette that cause him to go back into the endzone

Click to expand...

This. I think. Just one of those in the moment plays.

In his interview with Mike/Mike today he said he wanted to make sure he didn't end up costing the team a safety, so that's why he moved forward with the ball. I think he just wasn't sure, didn't have time to look down and see exactly where his feet were. Plus my hunch is that the secondary is trained to make forward progress with a turnover, if possible, and this is a hard urge to fight.

If your natural momentum as you are gaining control of the ball takes you into the endzone, then there is no way that they call it a safety.

If they see you intentionally take a step back after the catch, though, then you are in trouble.

From the different angles I have seen one foot is (barely) in the end zone by the time the catch was made. AT worst in this situation, the ball ends up at the spot of the interception as it was the momentum from hitting the opposing player that pushed him back into the endzone. Can't blame a player for doing what comes from instinct/training which was to fall forward. Hightower also ended up pushing him forward as well as down at the very end of the play.