What sort of thread have you made for us? A Wentz thread, if you can keep it.

[EC8CH]

It's not weird at all when you look at the core rules at play. Just because it looks funny occasionally doesn't mean the rule is wrong. "Fixing" it for that occasional aesthetically pleasing experience would surely screw up several other things that we need the rules for.

I don't doubt that. Just creates some counter intuitive situations.

[IndyBison]

I don't doubt that. Just creates some counter intuitive situations.

The suggested changes would be even worse. Let's say a runner fumbles deep in the defense's territory. The ball bounces off a defender and is recovered by the defense in the end zone. Since the defense touched it like others have suggested this would be a safety. By applying the definition of force and impetus, the fumble is what put the ball into the end zone and thus is the initial force. Just like the play that started this conversation the result is a touchback.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[CAS4127]

If you understand force or impetus it makes perfect sense. There are definitely complexities to the rule especially if you don't study the rules as deep as an official site. Like many rules it will create situations that seem odd but they are consistent applications.

I get why you and others feel this doesn't seem right, but it is a good rule.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

No, I don’t understand force or impetus!/dark purple. Good God already.

Also, I wouldn’t go so for as calling it a “good rule.” It’s a rule, yeah, I get that, but it provides advantages to, in this scenario, the receiving team over the defending team.

Also, what if there is a holding penalty by the receiving team in the endzone that prevents one defender from tackling the returner in the endzone, but another defender is able to? Still a touch back? Safety (like it should be)? Or is penalty enforced after ball is set at 25? How about a holding in endzone that allows returner to get out of endzone but he’s tackled at 10? Safety (like it should be) or is penalty enforce to the 5 (half distance)?

[ndsubison1]

For the love of my fantasy team please do not bench Hurts!

[ndsubison1]

Imagine thinking a team muffing the ball and recovering in the endzone should not be a safety.

[IndyBison]

No, I don’t understand force or impetus!/dark purple. Good God already.

Also, I wouldn’t go so for as calling it a “good rule.” It’s a rule, yeah, I get that, but it provides advantages to, in this scenario, the receiving team over the defending team.

Also, what if there is a holding penalty by the receiving team in the endzone that prevents one defender from tackling the returner in the endzone, but another defender is able to? Still a touch back? Safety (like it should be)? Or is penalty enforced after ball is set at 25? How about a holding in endzone that allows returner to get out of endzone but he’s tackled at 10? Safety (like it should be) or is penalty enforce to the 5 (half distance)?

The result of the play is still a touchback but now you have to deal with the foul. The basic spot (defined term used to determine the initial enforcement spot) would be the 20 (succeeding spot on a touchback other than a free kick) but the foul occurs behind the basic spot. This means the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul. The fact it happened in the end zone would result in a safety. The result of the play in the second example is the receiving team's ball at the 10. The foul occurred during the run so the end of the run is the basic spot. The foul occurred behind the basic spot so this is the enforcement spot. Since it's in the end zone the result of the penalty is again a safety.

Back to your original point, it's very rare for the receiving team to benefit from this. Let's say he tried to recover it at the 30 but muffed it back to the 5. Now they have first and 10 at the 5 rather than the 30 where he tried to possess it. In almost all instances where the receiving team muffs it or it touches the receiving team and then goes into the end zone it would have gone into the end zone without this touching. The rules already account for the situation where the receiving team intentionally bat or kick the ball into their own end zone. If they touch or muff it and it goes into the end zone the original force (kick, pass, or fumble) still applies.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[IndyBison]

Imagine thinking a team muffing the ball and the other team recovers and not thinking they should be rewarded the ball.

They generally are unless the kicking team touched a scrimmage kick first. That's called illegal touching in NCAA and in most cases the receiving team can take the ball at the spot of illegal touching. That's why the back judge drops a bean bag at that spot. And technically the kicking team downing a punt is called illegal touching. It's not a foul, but it's a violation that gives the receiving team options.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[bisonaudit]

There seems to be a lot of controversy and argumentation about officiating these kicking plays that would simply go away if teams stopped kicking so much.

[IndyBison]

There seems to be a lot of controversy and argumentation about officiating these kicking plays that would simply go away if teams stopped kicking so much.

All the strange stuff happens on kick plays. This is the dead ball routine by the back judge on every punt.

1. Count 11 on the receiving
2. Confirm count with other deep wings
3. Remind return guy to give a clear, legal signal
4. Position yourself 5 yards behind and 7 yards to the field side of the returner
5. Pray for a blocked punt

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

[Gully]

I think I understand the muff and touchback stuff. But if a receiver catches a ball clean and then runs backward into the endzone to avoid a defender and then is tackled, that is a safety right? Because the 'impetus' was the runner and not the original kick.