That sounds like it should have been a touchdown. If it goes OUT of the endzone it’s a touchback. Did the guy from the kicking team who recovered it step out of bounds, or maybe a part of him was out of bounds when he grabbed the ball?
EDIT: I’m interpreting this to mean the ball went 92+ yards: from your own 8 to your opponent’s endzone.
I said “returning team” and “receiving team” but in both cases I’m referring to the team that was returning the kickoff.
So team A kicks off. The ball lands near B’s 8 yard line. A player from B’s team accidentally kicks the ball into the end zone. Several players from both teams rush into the end zone to recover the ball, but someone from B’s team recovers it in the end zone.
Seems like a safety to me, but it was counted as a touchback.
Tried to find footage but the 5 minute highlight video on NFL.com didn’t cover it.
Actually, now I understand what you’re saying.
Receiving team guy touches (inadvertently kicks) the ball so now it’s live, and it rolls into the endzone. Another receiving team guy jumps on the ball in the endzone.
That’s properly ruled a touchback. It’s not about causing the ball to go into the endzone, it’s about possession. The first time the receiving team possesses the ball, it’s in their own endzone. That’s a touchback.
I was confused because I thought you were saying the guy who jumped on the ball in the endzone was on the kicking team. (My own confusion; you wrote it correctly.)
So possession is the deciding factor? If a guy catches it and possesses it at the 1, takes a step back into the end zone, and kneels it down, it’s a safety?
What if the ball comes to a dead stop at the 1, and he swats it into the end zone and then gains possession of it? Still a touchback?
Yep, possession is the deciding factor. For the hypothetical, I believe so, yes, but if there’s interaction with the defense then I think forward progress is ruled at the 1.
Yep. But in that case, he could just pick up the ball with some part of his body already touching the endzone. Also, it’s a penalty to deliberately kick the ball, so there might be a related penalty about deliberately swatting it backward to get a touchback out of it. Also keep in mind that if you deliberately swat it and it accidentally goes out of the endzone, that’s a safety, so be careful with that swat!
It was properly ruled a muffed kick, which doesn’t count as possession. The ball was pretty clearly accidentally kicked into the endzone so I think the play was called correctly.
But if the refs had determined that the ball was purposely kicked into the endzone without the receiving team having possession what would be the correct ruling?
I believe deliberately kicking a live ball is unsportsmanlike conduct.
What the heck happened to the RGIII that was shoved down our throats during the run-up to the 2012 NFL draft? He supposedly wasn’t like the other highly athletic, highly productive QB from spread offenses; he was supposed to be special. His intangibles were supposedly great (military family and all), he was supposedly comfortable in the pocket, could read defenses and go through progressions, and was a leader. But he’s chased out a coach he didn’t like, hasn’t progressed at all as an NFL QB, and isn’t above throwing his teammates under the bus.
Don’t get me wrong, I love seeing Daniel Snyder suffer, and the people who praised his giving away the future to draft RGIII be proven wrong, but I just don’t get it. Was it just all hype? Did the injury hurt his brain too? I liked the guy, but now it seems like he’s just another overhyped, underperforming wasted draft pick.
I first thought it should have been a safety, too.
Then, I though the referees were being consistent: The referees basically said that the kicking team (Team A) was the last team with possession, and then there was a live ball on the ground at the five yard line; the same situation as if Team A had fumbled the ball on the 5. In the case of the fumble, had there been a scramble for the ball with the defense (Team B) accidentally knocking the ball into the end zone and then recovering, I think everyone would agree that a touchback would be the fair and proper result.
On the other hand:
AR 11.18
Ahem. As I was saying,
But then, on the third hand, this seems awfully germane. It’s 2012, but I doubt anything has changed.
[QUOTE= 2012 NFL Rulebook]
Supplemental Note AR 11.18
B1 muffs a punt on his own 5-yard line. In attempting to recover he forces the ball (new impetus) into his end zone. See 3-15-3.
a) Where he recovers and is downed there.
Ruling: safety
[/QUOTE]
Any comment from the NFL yet?
Is B1 the punter or is he on the receiving team?
ETA: I guess “muff” has a definite meaning, and isn’t being used in the colloquial sense, where it could be either of those players.
The “new impetus” is the key bit there. From the header of that Supplemental section:
My understanding is that the ball was neither at rest nor nearly at rest, and the batting/kicking wasn’t illegal. Therefore no new impetus.
Note that this covers SenorBeef’s example of the ball coming to rest at the 1. If you intentionally knock it back into the endzone before falling on it, that’s an illegal bat. There’s also the definition of a touchback:
Only the opponents’ impetus can put the ball into the endzone for a touchback. That seems to confirm that in the actual play in question, the officials attribute the impetus of the ball to the kicking team. (If the impetus was from the receiving team, it would be a safety.) This seems consistent with all rules posted to the thread, and appears to confirm that they called it correctly.
Actually, I don’t believe it is.
[QUOTE=NFL Rulebook, 2014]
Article 1: Illegal Bat. It is an illegal bat if:
(a) a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent’s goal line;
[/QUOTE]
It’s not illegal to bat it backwards (even if that ends up saving you yardage).
Back to the actual play, the referees did not explain their decision by saying “The impetus was provided by the offence”; they said something about “No possession”. Which, to me is a blatant contradiction of previously quoted AR 11.18 (still in the 2014 version; I just checked). That makes it clear that you can have a safety without possession by the receiving team before the recovery in the end zone.
I think the officials blew it by not knowing the rule correctly. I presume they analogized to a kicking team fumble on the 5, accidentally knocked into the end zone by the defense then recovered by the defense, thought that a touchback was appropriate in that case, so awarded the touchback for the actual situation. But I think they were in the wrong, rule-wise, about that case, too, though as there’s nothing at all in the safety rule about needing to have possession of the ball. If the defense knocks a fumble across their own goal line and recovers, that should be a safety, too, by rule.
And, of course, for the facts, it’s really, really hard to argue that the impetus was not caused by the recieving team. I mean, it’s partially a judgement call, but that’s a pretty clear case, IMHO.
That could be interpreted as their lay-speak they use to talk to the unwashed masses. Has anyone hear ever heard any ref say the word “impetus”?
I didn’t see the play in question. Are you saying the ball wouldn’t have gone into the endzone if it didn’t ricochet off the receiver’s leg?
It wouldn’t have. It was being handled, though I guess without full possession.
Check this article (towards the bottom) for stop motion gif action.
More rules pedantry: I was watching a “Rewind” of Phi-GB. On one play, there was a pick-6 with a pretty short runback; then, a flag, charging Sanchez with an illegal chop block during the runback.
What-the-ever-lovin’-fuck?
This was the same flag thrown on Hasselbeck in SB XL, in which he was diving across a line of defenders to try to tackle the ball carrier (guy who stole the pass). Why would they call it an “illegal block” when the QB has suddenly switched roles? Is there any tackling-attempt procedure (except facemask or horsecollar) that is illegal? Is a diving-across tackle against the rules? I am so confused.
Isn’t AR 11.18 about punts, not kick offs?
AR 11.18 specifically refers to a punt, yes. But the general principle there is that if the receiving team provides the impetus to put the ball into the end zone, it should be a safety. And, crucially, in the situation in AR 11.18, the receiving team never has possession outside of the end zone, yet it is still a safety.
There’s no reason I can see that the same general principles would not apply to a kickoff, particularly in a situation where the ball has already initially touched a member of the receiving team and therefore is now in either the case of a punt or a kickoff a completely live ball, able to be recovered by either team.