Why was the Polamalu bat through the EZ a safety and not a touch back?

[Wolfpack]

From Mike Pereira.

In regards to Polamalu play - it should have been an illegal bat and if that was called then it would have been a touchback
MikePereira(about 16 hours ago)

Thanks to everyone for their feedback.

I saw the Twitter feed but I don't think Pereira actually knew what took place because I really don't think that's the right call (they Twitterites talking with Periera were not describing the play properly). It's 10 yards from the spot, not 10 yards from the dead ball.

If, for example, Polamalu bats it on the 15 and the Patriots recovered it at the 1, what's the proper call? It certainly wouldn't be a touchback. Should it be Patriots ball at the 1? Patriots ball at the 11 (10 yards from the dead ball spot)? Or Patriots ball at the 25 (10 yards from the spot of the foul)? I'm saying Patriots ball at the 25.

Now say, for example, Polamalu bats it back and the Steelers recover it at the 1. It wouldn't be Pittsburgh ball if the proper call is made. We're still at Patriots ball at the 25.

 

[Wolfpack]

But it is a scoring play, so shouldn't it therefore be automatically reviewed?

That particular penalty cannot be reviewed on replay under any circumstances. In general, penalties can never be reviewed (there are a few exceptions where penalties can be reviewed but illegal batting is not one such exception).

Now what they refs can do, since it was a scoring play, is review it to see if Pittsburgh recovered it cleanly before going out of bounds, in which case it would have been a TD and not a safety. I don't know if they did that because by then I was flipping stations back and forth by then.

Or does that new rule apply strictly to touchdowns? And if that is the case, then does that mean two point conversions are also not automatically reviewed?

It applies to any play which is ruled a score on the field. As others have pointed out, this is stupid since a play like the Gronk non-touchdown catch doesn't get an automatic review. Since the safety was a scoring play, it was subject to booth review.

(Actually, inside 2:00 all plays are subject to booth review and cannot be challenged. But the safety still could have been reviewed if it has taken place in, say, the 3rd quarter.)

 

[jmt57]

Thanks for clarifying.

All of which leads to one thing I have had a contention with in regards to the implementation of rule changes. Rather than the current system in which a rule change is made and it basically becomes an experiment over the course of the season, why not try a proposed rule change during preseason. Then review it and debate it, tweak it (or dump it) as necessary, and implement it full time in real games the following year.

 

[Batman]

It would not be a touchback as pits never got posesion of the ball. The play resulted in a score therefore was reviewed but the only things that could be reviewed in that play were did Brady fumble or forward pass no question it was a fumble. And was it recovered in bounds which it was not therefore a safety was awarded the refs can review it and go poo we missed that penalty. If penatlys were reviewable I am sure they could find holding on every play if they took the time to look at every player and probably find illegal contact on evey pass.

 

[LivinLovin&Breathin_Brady]

When players, example Michael Vick, fumbles the ball and the other team picks up the ball, but it's out of bounds, Vick always gets the ball back... right? Since it's not recovered in bounds the offense gets the ball back. That's what I understood.

I figured since the Steelers recovered the ball out of bounds and not in bounds, then the fumble wasn't recovered and Brady would get the ball back(like Vick) with 6 seconds to go and with Polamalu's should've-been-penalized illegal play, the Pats would gain about 10 penalty yards. That's what I understood, that why I was fussing with ppl about that ******ed safety and continued with my cheated out of two(Gronk's TD that would've left us with 2 extra mins) major plays theory, not that we would've won anyway if Brady kept it with those measly 6 secs. I'm just sayin'

 

[IllegalContact]

who cares......it didn't matter......there was no magic bullet in the area.....


move on........refs screw up.......part of the game.......

 

[Dessalines]

Based on the actual rules, it should have been a penalty on Polamalu. A defensive player cannot punch a ball forward towards the opponent's end zone.

 

[QuantumMechanic]

When players, example Michael Vick, fumbles the ball and the other team picks up the ball, but it's out of bounds, Vick always gets the ball back... right? Since it's not recovered in bounds the offense gets the ball back. That's what I understood.

That's correct when the ball in that situation goes out-of-bounds in the field of play. But the endzone is special. If the offense last had possession, fumbles it, and the ball goes out-of-bounds in the offense's endzone, it's a safety.

 

[Hexonxonx]

I signed up for this site just to address this. Here's my take:

The correct call on the field should have been an illegal bat by Polamalu, with the Patriots given 1st and 10 with 8 seconds left ten yards in advance of the previous spot. Even after the officials failed to see the illegal bat, on review it should have been ruled a touchback, with the Patriots given the ball at the 20 with 8 seconds left. Rule 3-15-3(a) says: "Impetus is the action of a player that gives momentum to the ball and sends it in touch. The impetus is attributed to the offense, except when the ball is sent in touch through a new momentum when the defense muffs a ball which is at rest, or nearly at rest, or illegally bats a kick or fumble." Rule 3-28 says: "A safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line provided the impetus came from a player of that team and it is not a touchdown."

Presumably Carey did not overturn the play because illegal batting (12-1-8) is not a penalty that can be found on instant replay (very few penalties can be). But he didn't need to find a penalty, just rule that the ball was illegally batted. Suppose a ref wasn't able to rule this way; then the illegal batting part of rule 3-15-3 would have no purpose. If illegal batting was ruled on the field, then the result of the play doesn't matter because the penalty would be enforced instead. Under the presumption that all rules have a purpose, the effect of the rule is to create the possibility that a ball can be ruled illegally batted into an end zone *even if* the penalty for illegal batting was not called and cannot be enforced on review.

Under the new rule that all scoring plays are automatically reviewed, the elements of what constitutes a safety are reviewable, just like with a touchdown or field goal (ball in player possession, ball breaking the plane, ball legally kicked, ball passing over the crossbar, etc). The reason it would be a touchback for the Patriots is that the rules say it's not a safety, and it's also not a touchdown, and another rule says that any ball that becomes dead in touch is either a touchdown, a safety, or a touchback.

The other possibility for the intent of this rule is that it creates an option for the offense when something like this happens. Suppose the ball is snapped, the QB fumbles, a defender illegally bats the ball out of the back of the endzone, and a penalty is called. The alternate reading of the rule is that *if the penalty is called*, then the offense can accept it and repeat the down ten yards in advance of the previous spot, or decline it and take a touchback, getting a first down at their own 20. Thus you'd decline the illegal batting penalty if you snapped the ball from inside your own 10, and you *might* decline the penalty if you snapped from a few yards beyond the 10, the penalty would not give you a first down, and you value a first down more than the yards.

But I'm sticking with my first interpretation. Impetus is an element of a safety, and thus it is a reviewable play.

 

[SteveKiner]

I signed up for this site just to address this. Here's my take:

The correct call on the field should have been an illegal bat by Polamalu, with the Patriots given 1st and 10 with 8 seconds left ten yards in advance of the previous spot. Even after the officials failed to see the illegal bat, on review it should have been ruled a touchback, with the Patriots given the ball at the 20 with 8 seconds left. Rule 3-15-3(a) says: "Impetus is the action of a player that gives momentum to the ball and sends it in touch. The impetus is attributed to the offense, except when the ball is sent in touch through a new momentum when the defense muffs a ball which is at rest, or nearly at rest, or illegally bats a kick or fumble." Rule 3-28 says: "A safety is the situation in which the ball is dead on or behind a team's own goal line provided the impetus came from a player of that team and it is not a touchdown."

Presumably Carey did not overturn the play because illegal batting (12-1-8) is not a penalty that can be found on instant replay (very few penalties can be). But he didn't need to find a penalty, just rule that the ball was illegally batted. Suppose a ref wasn't able to rule this way; then the illegal batting part of rule 3-15-3 would have no purpose. If illegal batting was ruled on the field, then the result of the play doesn't matter because the penalty would be enforced instead. Under the presumption that all rules have a purpose, the effect of the rule is to create the possibility that a ball can be ruled illegally batted into an end zone *even if* the penalty for illegal batting was not called and cannot be enforced on review.

Under the new rule that all scoring plays are automatically reviewed, the elements of what constitutes a safety are reviewable, just like with a touchdown or field goal (ball in player possession, ball breaking the plane, ball legally kicked, ball passing over the crossbar, etc). The reason it would be a touchback for the Patriots is that the rules say it's not a safety, and it's also not a touchdown, and another rule says that any ball that becomes dead in touch is either a touchdown, a safety, or a touchback.

The other possibility for the intent of this rule is that it creates an option for the offense when something like this happens. Suppose the ball is snapped, the QB fumbles, a defender illegally bats the ball out of the back of the endzone, and a penalty is called. The alternate reading of the rule is that *if the penalty is called*, then the offense can accept it and repeat the down ten yards in advance of the previous spot, or decline it and take a touchback, getting a first down at their own 20. Thus you'd decline the illegal batting penalty if you snapped the ball from inside your own 10, and you *might* decline the penalty if you snapped from a few yards beyond the 10, the penalty would not give you a first down, and you value a first down more than the yards.

But I'm sticking with my first interpretation. Impetus is an element of a safety, and thus it is a reviewable play.

I think and hope you are correct. That is the way I saw it. The impetus was provided by Polamalu. Mike Pereria said that it "should have" been called illegal batting and if it had, it would be a touchback. I disagree with his intepretation and think yours is more correct. IMO It should be a touchback even if it was not called Illegal batting.

Thanks Hexonxonx and to everyone for all your research and opinions on the issue. I realize it made no signifigant difference in the game, but I wanted to better understand the rule.