Live ball on kick off

[StatTiger 3,188]

 NCAA rule book:Section 7. Responsibility and Impetus
Initial Impetus—ARTICLE 2
Approved Ruling 8-7-2
I. Ball carrier A1, advancing toward Team B’s goal line, fumbles when B1
bats the ball from his hand or tackles him from the rear. In either case, A1
loses possession short of the goal line, and the ball goes into Team B’s end
zone, where Team B recovers. RULING: Touchback. Impetus is charged
to the fumble by Team A (Rule 8-6-1-a).
II. Any kick by Team A strikes the ground and a Team B player bats the ball
across Team B’s goal line, where Team B recovers it while grounded or it
goes out of bounds. RULING: New impetus is given by Team B. Safety,
two points for Team A. Batting the kick is considered to have destroyed
the impetus of the kick and imparted a new impetus. However, merely
touching or deflecting the kick, or being struck by it, does not destroy the
impetus of the kick (Rule 8-5-1-a).

 

A friend of mine who officiates NCAA football cited to me the above section. He gave me the following explanation and how he would have ruled on the play.

For it to have remained a live ball after crossing the goal line , Shivers had to possess and then fumble the ball or batted the ball. Both would have changed the impetus of the kick. The mere grazing or inadvertent contact with the ball would not automatically change the impetus of the ball but COULD be a judgment call and reviewed unless an official ruled the play a touchback and dead. He further stated that once the official blew the play dead after it crossed the goal line, it could not be reviewed because the play was ruled a touchback. In his opinion, the impetus of the ball never changed even after contact with Shiver's pinky so the moment the ball crossed the goal line, it was an AUTOMATIC touchback. Prior to the rule changes, the receiver had to field the ball in the end zone because a ball beyond 10-yards was considered live. The changes were made for player-safety. He added that the official likely did not see Shivers make contact with the ball, which is why he blew it dead once the ball rolled past the goal line. Had he saw any contact with the ball, he would have allowed the play to carry on until a recovery was made or the ball rolled out of the field of play. A review would be warranted to determine if Shivers did indeed change the impetus of the ball. If they felt the impetus would have taken the ball into the end zone, it would be ruled a touch back because it was no longer a live ball once it crossed the goal line. If they ruled he did change the impetus it would be a live ball and a TD would have been awarded to Ole Miss if they recovered it in the end zone.

[Viper 3,132]

The moment the first review happened, I instantly said, doesn’t matter if he touched it, it’s a touchback, period. 

[Swamp Eagle 5,134]

15 minutes ago, Viper said:

The moment the first review happened, I instantly said, doesn’t matter if he touched it, it’s a touchback, period. 

That’s not what he just explained. It wasn’t an automatic touchback just because it reached the end zone. It was dead because the official did not determine the impetus of the ball was affected (even in slo-mo replay it couldn’t be seen) and blew the whistle when it got there. However, if the official had not blown it dead before the OM player recovered it, the play could have been reviewed and possibly overturned. That’s how I read it.

[StatTiger 3,188]

26 minutes ago, Swamp Eagle said:

That’s not what he just explained. It wasn’t an automatic touchback just because it reached the end zone. It was dead because the official did not determine the impetus of the ball was affected (even in slo-mo replay it couldn’t be seen) and blew the whistle when it got there. However, if the official had not blown it dead before the OM player recovered it, the play could have been reviewed and possibly overturned. That’s how I read it.

No... the ref I spoke with said he would have ruled the impetus was not changed by the contact with Shivers hand so it would have been a touchback. He did add that if not for the early whistle, the play could have been reviewed to discuss if the impetus had been changed.

[Viper 3,132]

37 minutes ago, Swamp Eagle said:

That’s not what he just explained. It wasn’t an automatic touchback just because it reached the end zone. It was dead because the official did not determine the impetus of the ball was affected (even in slo-mo replay it couldn’t be seen) and blew the whistle when it got there. However, if the official had not blown it dead before the OM player recovered it, the play could have been reviewed and possibly overturned. That’s how I read it.

His ref friend said “batted.” Clearly the ball wasn’t batted. 

It was inadvertent touching. That’s why I knew the moment it happened it was a touchback. Why? Because I’ve seen kickoffs be touched by returners, roll into the end zone, and even with the returner chasing after it, the ref still ruling it a touchback. Like Stat’s ref friend said...rules have been changed for player safety.

[Swamp Eagle 5,134]

19 minutes ago, StatTiger said:

No... the ref I spoke with said he would have ruled the impetus was not changed by the contact with Shivers hand so it would have been a touchback. He did add that if not for the early whistle, the play could have been reviewed to discuss if the impetus had been changed.

Still could have been a judgement call if reviewed and overturned, no? I like the explanation for sure. It puts it into better perspective of whether or not it was just a blatantly bad call.

[alexava 6,973]

I have remained quiet on this but this is exactly what I thought even when it happened. The commentators, who don’t always know the rules got this started. The “ momentum “ of the ball carriied it into the end zone. It’s a touch back. 

[Cardin Drake 1,825]

Thanks, StatTiger.

Your explanation makes it 100% clear that the correct call was made, and Ole Miss has nothing to bitch about.  It's almost too bad;  I liked hosing Lane Kiffen. But I like beating them fair and square too. And I'm still hot that that Ole Miss's last TD was enabled with a blatant block/tackle in the back.

[weagl1 1,782]

Once official blew the whistle the play was over.  Period.  People keep talking about it should have been reviewed what could a review have done?  Nothing.  The official waved his arm that the ball had crossed the goal line and blew the whistle on the play.  You can see it on the film clip that keeps showing up to try to prove the “pinky finger touch”.  You could argue that the official should not have done that but he did.  The play was over at that point and it didn’t matter who picked the ball up in the end zone it was no longer a live ball.  It’s no different than an official blowing the whistle when a runner’s forward progress is stopped and then he loses possession to a defender.  The official blew the whistle and the play is over.  Period.  You can’t review it and undo the whistle stopping play.  

[TigerPAC 965]

i just wish the SEC would come out and say the ref on the field actually got the call correct, review or not.  but instead, they seem to pander to the masses.  hey, they got 25k out of lane though

[StatTiger 3,188]

2 hours ago, Swamp Eagle said:

Still could have been a judgement call if reviewed and overturned, no? I like the explanation for sure. It puts it into better perspective of whether or not it was just a blatantly bad call.

Not once the play was ruled dead. It would have been the ultimate shaft to Auburn had the official on the field waved off Shivers, saying it was a touch back and have another official in the booth over turn it and rule it a TD for Ole Miss. This is why the focus should be on the play being blown dead based on the way it actually played out. Had the official on the field felt Shivers touched the ball, he would have likely allowed the play to play out for recovery. If Ole Miss recovered, it would have been reviewed for impetus and likely overturned in favor of Auburn. If Shivers recovered which is most likely since he was FAR closest to the ball, it would have been a touch back. The impetus of the ball clearly shows it was headed to the end zone and Shivers touching it did not change that because the ball indeed made it to the end zone.

[Swamp Eagle 5,134]

45 minutes ago, StatTiger said:

Not once the play was ruled dead. It would have been the ultimate shaft to Auburn had the official on the field waved off Shivers, saying it was a touch back and have another official in the booth over turn it and rule it a TD for Ole Miss. This is why the focus should be on the play being blown dead based on the way it actually played out. Had the official on the field felt Shivers touched the ball, he would have likely allowed the play to play out for recovery. If Ole Miss recovered, it would have been reviewed for impetus and likely overturned in favor of Auburn. If Shivers recovered which is most likely since he was FAR closest to the ball, it would have been a touch back. The impetus of the ball clearly shows it was headed to the end zone and Shivers touching it did not change that because the ball indeed made it to the end zone.

No, I wasn’t referring to once it was blown dead. I was continuing off my original reply where I said had it not been blown dead. Sorry for the confusion. 

[waaegl 64]

2 hours ago, TigerPAC said:

i just wish the SEC would come out and say the ref on the field actually got the call correct, review or not.  but instead, they seem to pander to the masses.  hey, they got 25k out of lane though

I’m sure Tom Hart and Jordan Rogers will clear things up and apologize for their whining during this week’s 11:00 SEC second tier game of the week.

[kwagoner 214]

8 hours ago, StatTiger said:

 NCAA rule book:Section 7. Responsibility and Impetus
Initial Impetus—ARTICLE 2
Approved Ruling 8-7-2
I. Ball carrier A1, advancing toward Team B’s goal line, fumbles when B1
bats the ball from his hand or tackles him from the rear. In either case, A1
loses possession short of the goal line, and the ball goes into Team B’s end
zone, where Team B recovers. RULING: Touchback. Impetus is charged
to the fumble by Team A (Rule 8-6-1-a).
II. Any kick by Team A strikes the ground and a Team B player bats the ball
across Team B’s goal line, where Team B recovers it while grounded or it
goes out of bounds. RULING: New impetus is given by Team B. Safety,
two points for Team A. Batting the kick is considered to have destroyed
the impetus of the kick and imparted a new impetus. However, merely
touching or deflecting the kick, or being struck by it, does not destroy the
impetus of the kick (Rule 8-5-1-a).

 

A friend of mine who officiates NCAA football cited to me the above section. He gave me the following explanation and how he would have ruled on the play.

For it to have remained a live ball after crossing the goal line , Shivers had to possess and then fumble the ball or batted the ball. Both would have changed the impetus of the kick. The mere grazing or inadvertent contact with the ball would not automatically change the impetus of the ball but COULD be a judgment call and reviewed unless an official ruled the play a touchback and dead. He further stated that once the official blew the play dead after it crossed the goal line, it could not be reviewed because the play was ruled a touchback. In his opinion, the impetus of the ball never changed even after contact with Shiver's pinky so the moment the ball crossed the goal line, it was an AUTOMATIC touchback. Prior to the rule changes, the receiver had to field the ball in the end zone because a ball beyond 10-yards was considered live. The changes were made for player-safety. He added that the official likely did not see Shivers make contact with the ball, which is why he blew it dead once the ball rolled past the goal line. Had he saw any contact with the ball, he would have allowed the play to carry on until a recovery was made or the ball rolled out of the field of play. A review would be warranted to determine if Shivers did indeed change the impetus of the ball. If they felt the impetus would have taken the ball into the end zone, it would be ruled a touch back because it was no longer a live ball once it crossed the goal line. If they ruled he did change the impetus it would be a live ball and a TD would have been awarded to Ole Miss if they recovered it in the end zone.

I learned something new today.

Now, I wonder if the SEC gave this explanation to OM and Kiffin? If so, it would be hard to justify the continued complaints and fines. I see one of two things...

1: it was explained similar to what was described here, Kiffin uses the unknown technicality to earn respect for fighting for his team and its with the fine. And it stirs the pot (a Kiffin specialty)
 

2: SEC goofed... they later said it should have been reviewed. If that’s the case, how could time to investigate and review yield the official comment? 

[Viper 3,132]

10 hours ago, Swamp Eagle said:

Still could have been a judgement call if reviewed and overturned, no?

Absolutely not. It's a touchback whether Kiffin and everyone who the TV Announcers tried to convince agrees with it or not. An inadvertent kickoff return touch is not the same rule as an inadvertent punt return touch. It never has been. How all of a sudden has that rule changed? Answer: It hasn't.

[Viper 3,132]

8 hours ago, weagl1 said:

Once official blew the whistle the play was over.  Period.  People keep talking about it should have been reviewed what could a review have done?  Nothing.  The official waved his arm that the ball had crossed the goal line and blew the whistle on the play.  You can see it on the film clip that keeps showing up to try to prove the “pinky finger touch”.  You could argue that the official should not have done that but he did.

I have watched kick returners inadvertently touch a kickoff return, chase after it thinking it was a live ball like it was a punt return, roll into the end zone with the returner chasing after it and the ref immediately signaling touchback as soon as the ball crosses the goal line. Those plays were with the ref CLEARLY identifying the returner touched the ball. How is the Shivers play more a live ball than those? Answer: It's not. It's a freaking touchback. End of story.

[rexbo 104]

Can you imagine ever being this butt hurt over "losing" a game, thinking a pinky brush was the sole reason you lost?  It's not anything like the clear double-dribble by Virginia that would have sealed the Final Four win; but CFB nation is more aghast over this call than any contentious play in the past 5 years...

[VicTree 143]

So the only mistake made was not reviewing the call to determine that the ball's momentum carried it into the endzone for a touchback.  It ended up being the correct result, and they need to come out and say that to shut up all these crybabies that think we got away with another one.  They should also issue a statement to emphasize in the future not to blow the whistle if the kickoff comes near a player on the receiving team, even if it goes into the endzone until it has been secured by someone.

[TecmoBoJackson 65]

On 10/28/2020 at 10:08 AM, StatTiger said:

 NCAA rule book:Section 7. Responsibility and Impetus
Initial Impetus—ARTICLE 2
Approved Ruling 8-7-2
I. Ball carrier A1, advancing toward Team B’s goal line, fumbles when B1
bats the ball from his hand or tackles him from the rear. In either case, A1
loses possession short of the goal line, and the ball goes into Team B’s end
zone, where Team B recovers. RULING: Touchback. Impetus is charged
to the fumble by Team A (Rule 8-6-1-a).
II. Any kick by Team A strikes the ground and a Team B player bats the ball
across Team B’s goal line, where Team B recovers it while grounded or it
goes out of bounds. RULING: New impetus is given by Team B. Safety,
two points for Team A. Batting the kick is considered to have destroyed
the impetus of the kick and imparted a new impetus. However, merely
touching or deflecting the kick, or being struck by it, does not destroy the
impetus of the kick (Rule 8-5-1-a).

 

A friend of mine who officiates NCAA football cited to me the above section. He gave me the following explanation and how he would have ruled on the play.

For it to have remained a live ball after crossing the goal line , Shivers had to possess and then fumble the ball or batted the ball. Both would have changed the impetus of the kick. The mere grazing or inadvertent contact with the ball would not automatically change the impetus of the ball but COULD be a judgment call and reviewed unless an official ruled the play a touchback and dead. He further stated that once the official blew the play dead after it crossed the goal line, it could not be reviewed because the play was ruled a touchback. In his opinion, the impetus of the ball never changed even after contact with Shiver's pinky so the moment the ball crossed the goal line, it was an AUTOMATIC touchback. Prior to the rule changes, the receiver had to field the ball in the end zone because a ball beyond 10-yards was considered live. The changes were made for player-safety. He added that the official likely did not see Shivers make contact with the ball, which is why he blew it dead once the ball rolled past the goal line. Had he saw any contact with the ball, he would have allowed the play to carry on until a recovery was made or the ball rolled out of the field of play. A review would be warranted to determine if Shivers did indeed change the impetus of the ball. If they felt the impetus would have taken the ball into the end zone, it would be ruled a touch back because it was no longer a live ball once it crossed the goal line. If they ruled he did change the impetus it would be a live ball and a TD would have been awarded to Ole Miss if they recovered it in the end zone.

Case Closed....

I do wonder however how many of these talking heads and journalists (I use that term loosely, very loosely) actually bothered to look up the rule or just figured they knew they were right because they have watched football on tv.

[WDE_OxPx_2010 5,297]

In this case and the case of the Nix spike (and going all the way back to Roc's IB fumble years ago) I wish our guys played with more urgency. We were always taught to play full speed regardless of the fumble being right or not. These guys clearly don't follow that mantra. 

If the ball hits the ground, jump on it. Don't let the officials decide possession.

[Viper 3,132]

On 10/29/2020 at 8:52 AM, VicTree said:

So the only mistake made was not reviewing the call to determine that the ball's momentum carried it into the endzone for a touchback.

No mistake. The play was ruled dead as soon as it crossed the goal line, thus killing any possibility for a review. This is exactly what a ref told Kiffin on the field, which is correct.

[Viper 3,132]

On 10/29/2020 at 9:30 AM, TecmoBoJackson said:

Case Closed....

I do wonder however how many of these talking heads and journalists (I use that term loosely, very loosely) actually bothered to look up the rule or just figured they knew they were right because they have watched football on tv.

Because they equated it to a punt return fumble i.e. they don’t know the kickoff return rules. 

[AUApostle 7,651]

Armed with this info I'm going to give some folks hell on twitter tonight!  Who's with me?

[WarTiger 3,901]

Sorry, Stat.   The rule referenced in the OP doesn't apply here.  The ball was never "batted" at all and impetus doesn't apply.  In that play referenced above Team B recovered it.  It never said anything about the ball being dead when it crossed the goal line or what the result would be if Team A (the kicking team) had recovered it.  Had the official ruled Shivers touched the ball, it will ABSOLUTELY remain a live ball after it gets to the endzone and would absolutely be a touchdown for Ole Miss had they recovered it.   It also doesn't matter at all whether it was touched inadvertently or intentionally.     The only time that would come into play is if the opponent blocked him into the ball, then its ignored.  Otherwise, it is NOT ignored at all.    Only a freekick that is UNTOUCHED by R is a touchback if it goes into the endzone.

Ball Dead in End Zone
ARTICLE 7. a. When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground
on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B.

The key word in that rule is UNTOUCHED.  If its touched by R(team b ) it is not blown dead when it gets to the endzone in college football.

  Also, there's no such thing as an inadvertent touch anywhere in the rule book.   The only time the word Inadvertent is used in the book anywhere is referencing an inadvertent whistle. 

[Viper 3,132]

11 hours ago, WarTiger said:

Ball Dead in End Zone
ARTICLE 7. a. When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground
on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B.

The key word in that rule is UNTOUCHED.  If its touched by R(team b ) it is not blown dead when it gets to the endzone in college football.

 

So how does Rule 8-5-1-a coincide with that rule?

 

On 10/28/2020 at 9:08 AM, StatTiger said:

II. Any kick by Team A strikes the ground and a Team B player bats the ball
across Team B’s goal line, where Team B recovers it while grounded or it
goes out of bounds. RULING: New impetus is given by Team B. Safety,
two points for Team A. Batting the kick is considered to have destroyed
the impetus of the kick and imparted a new impetus. However, merely
touching or deflecting the kick, or being struck by it, does not destroy the
impetus of the kick (Rule 8-5-1-a).