- Joined
- Sep 10, 2006
- Messages
- 16,238
- Reaction score
- 33,794
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.NFL Rule 8, Section 7, Article 3, Item 4b
If a ball is fumbled in a team’s own end zone or in the field of play and goes out of bounds in the end zone, it is a
safety, if that team provided the impetus that sent the ball into the end zone (See 11-5-1 for exception for
momentum). If the impetus was provided by the opponent, it is a touchback.
Actually it should have either been a incompetion or a touchback since according to the rules:
And the rule doesn't mention intent so if it was ruled a fumble the Colt player batted it out of bounds if not then it was a forward pass and should have been ruled a incompletion there is no in between.
Thank you for the clarification, but would you mind breaking it down into tonight's scenario?
I've had a bottle of Pinot Noir to myself, and I'm finding the rule interpretation a bit hard to decipher in tonight's terms.
If Allen was ruled to have fumbled the colts player was the reason it went out of bounds & since he was the last to touch it it's a touchback but if it was ruled a forward pass then obviously it's an incompletion since it went out of bounds.
So, would the incompletion have been at the original LOS around the 40 or so, or would it have been at the 2 yd line?
Thanks for the response.
Line of scrimmage, there is no rule that I know of that says you have to be a certain amount of yards behind the LOS to attempt a pass. So theoretically you could run all the way to your endzone and then just dump it off to the closest eligible receiver and if it's incomplete it goes back to the line of scrimmage. Isn't that similar to the famous McNabb play except he actually completed the pass.
Also for another example if the Allen play is a fumble and the Colts scramble to dive on the ball in the end zone and the ball goes out of bounds is that not always a touchback. It was a major screwup by a bad officiating crew. What would be the difference if it unfolded that way as compared to how it actually unfolded?
I love how they have been treating his retirement like he's ******* Madden or Summerall.
I love how they have been treating his retirement like he's ******* Madden or Summerall.
If Allen was ruled to have fumbled the colts player was the reason it went out of bounds & since he was the last to touch it it's a touchback
Wrong. That's now how the "impetus" doctrine works. Because no Colt ever had possession and because the bat was unintentional, impetus remains attributed to Allen, so it is indeed properly a safety.
NFL Rule 8, Section 7, Article 3, Item 4b
If a ball is fumbled in a team’s own end zone or in the field of play and goes out of bounds in the end zone, it is a safety, if that team provided the impetus that sent the ball into the end zone (See 11-5-1 for exception for momentum). If the impetus was provided by the opponent, it is a touchback.
The impetus is always attributed to the offense, unless the defense creates a new force that sends the ball behind its own goal line by muffing a ball which is at rest or nearly at rest, or by illegally batting or illegally kicking a ball (3-15-3)
IMPETUS
Article 3
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) a kick or fumble;
(b) a backward pass after it has struck the ground;
(c) or illegally kicks any ball (12-1-9).
Note 1: If a passive player is pushed or blocked into any kick or fumble, or into a backward pass after it has struck the ground,
and if such pushing or blocking is the primary factor that sends such a loose ball in touch, the impetus is by the pusher or
blocker, and the pushed (blocked) player will not be
considered to have touched the ball. See 9-2-4.
I don't think it was. None of the colts players ever had possession of the ball. Had one of them picked it up and gained possession of the ball and then fumbled the ball out of the endzone it would have been a touchback. I believe they made the correct call.Line of scrimmage, there is no rule that I know of that says you have to be a certain amount of yards behind the LOS to attempt a pass. So theoretically you could run all the way to your endzone and then just dump it off to the closest eligible receiver and if it's incomplete it goes back to the line of scrimmage. Isn't that similar to the famous McNabb play except he actually completed the pass.
Also for another example if the Allen play is a fumble and the Colts scramble to dive on the ball in the end zone and the ball goes out of bounds is that not always a touchback. It was a major screwup by a bad officiating crew. What would be the difference if it unfolded that way as compared to how it actually unfolded?
Actually it should have either been a incompetion or a touchback since according to the rules:
And the rule doesn't mention intent so if it was ruled a fumble the Colt player batted it out of bounds if not then it was a forward pass and should have been ruled a incompletion there is no in between.
Actually it should have either been a incompetion or a touchback since according to the rules:
And the rule doesn't mention intent so if it was ruled a fumble the Colt player batted it out of bounds if not then it was a forward pass and should have been ruled a incompletion there is no in between.
Dierdorf was completely incoherent tonight. I wonder if he has a medical condition affecting him. He couldn't complete a sentence.
What is your source for "intent"? The NFL avoids charging officials with assigning intent and I can't find this in the rules:
I thought it was an incomplete pass at first too but it was just a dropped ball. The impetus to go out of the end zone was from the colt player
Nope. First, if the defense accepts the penalty it is 4th down over again. Second, the 15 yd illegal batting/kicking penalty is enforced from the line of scrimmage, not the spot of the bat/kick.
So defense would always decline the penalty and take the safety.
Don't you remember the Colts punter kicking the ball out of the endzone after a bad snap in the 2003 AFCCG?