In the Bears game
- Thread starter hdhntr1
- Start date
A half cannot end on a defensive penalty. The penalty was batting the ball in the end zone.
The rule on batted balls:
It is an illegal bat if:
a) any player bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent's goal line
b) any player bats or punches a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in either end zone
c) an offensive player bats a backward pass in flight toward his opponent's goal line
So the order of things was 1) fumble at 1 yard line, 2) ball goes into end zone 3) Steeler bats ball in end zone (penalty).
So they spotted the ball at the 1, giving the Bears the extra untimed play, which Charles Leno promptly botched by getting a false start.
There sure was all kinds of stupid in that sequence, which overshadowed the great effort by our very own Sherrick McManis.
The rule on batted balls:
It is an illegal bat if:
a) any player bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent's goal line
b) any player bats or punches a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in either end zone
c) an offensive player bats a backward pass in flight toward his opponent's goal line
So the order of things was 1) fumble at 1 yard line, 2) ball goes into end zone 3) Steeler bats ball in end zone (penalty).
So they spotted the ball at the 1, giving the Bears the extra untimed play, which Charles Leno promptly botched by getting a false start.
There sure was all kinds of stupid in that sequence, which overshadowed the great effort by our very own Sherrick McManis.
Thanks for the detailed explanation.
To emphasize how odd the situation was, I believe if the Pitt player had made a legit attempt to recover in the end zone and it happened to go out of bounds off him as a result of a typical fumble battle (no established possession, no deliberate batting) then it would have been a touchback and Steelers' ball.
Not sure how the refs interpret intent when it isn't so obvious.
To emphasize how odd the situation was, I believe if the Pitt player had made a legit attempt to recover in the end zone and it happened to go out of bounds off him as a result of a typical fumble battle (no established possession, no deliberate batting) then it would have been a touchback and Steelers' ball.
Not sure how the refs interpret intent when it isn't so obvious.
Furthermore, if a Bear (apart from the fumbling player) had fallen on the ball in the end zone, the ball would have been spotted back at the 1 yard line and the half would have ended. Very odd indeed.
I understand that the batted ball results in a penalty and that the half could not end on a defensive penalty. But thought it would be a safety. If a Bear falls on in in end zone, wouldn't it be a TD as the original player is not the one that basically put it there? If the fumble goes through the endzone or out of bounds in the endzone, it would be a touchback. If Pitt player recovers touchback
Last edited:
How can it be a safety when the defensive team, not the offensive team, was the last team to have posession of the ball before it was fumbled through Pittsburgh's end zone? Chicago fumbled the ball, not Pittsburgh. The only reason that play did not result in a touch back is that a Pittsburgh player deliberately batted the ball out of the end zone. In doing so he committed a penalty and that is why Chicago was given possession of the ball at the spot of the fumble with one last play before the half. Of course the bumbling Bears committed a false start and had no choice but to kick a field goal. As a Bears fan, I'll take the outcome.
Maybe my use of those terms confused you further. Forget about offensive or defensive team. If Chicago last had possession of the football and the ball went out of bounds in Pittsburgh's end zone, then it can't be a safety. Pittsburgh would had to have had possession of the ball last and fumbled the ball out of their end zone in order for it to be a safety. The fact that a veteran head coach like John Fox did not understand that basic concept/rule in yesterday's game explains why the Bears look like a totally disorganized and undisciplined team three years into his tenure.
Yup. That's the "Oakland Raider Holy Roller" rule where an offense cannot advance a fumble inside 2 minutes to the half. The ball gets spotted at the point of fumble's origination.
I remember watching that play involving Kenny Stabler, Pete Banazcak and Dave Casper with my brother. His friend, a Raiders fan, went berserk after that.
Thanks for explaining that. I always wondered if an effective play could be drawn up to purposely fumble a ball to get it closer to the goal line (or even across it) when once in the red zone. So can that still be done as long as it is not within the last two minutes of the game? Are we talking about the "fumblerooskie" here?
They officials on the field originally said the half had ended. Knew that was wrong. Frankly since the officials didn't understand the rules in this case, don't know why this indicates what you say about Fox. Plenty of things you can say about him but not sure this is one of them. It is not exactly a series of events you see every day.
it would have been halftime had it not been for the penalty that resulted from the Pittsburgh player deliberately batting the ball out of bounds. If the ball had just rolled out of bounds or been pushed out of bounds in the scramble for the ball, the half would have been over and the Bears would have ended up with no points.
Regarding Fox's reaction, forget about the rule. A coach who has been around football his whole life should instinctively know that when your player fumbles the ball, that can't possibly result in a safety called on the opposing team. I was in the stands yesterday and watching Fox run out of the field clamoring for a safety was embarrassing and comical at the same time. FOx was supposed to bring this veteran, steady, disciplined presence to the Bears and he has done anything but. I can understand why Elway fired him and don't think it is a coincidence the Broncos won the Super Bowl the year after Fox left.
If an official judges that a player deliberately fumbles a ball in a forward direction, it is considered a forward pass, not a fumble. If a player wants to deliberately fumble backwards or sideways, that's legal, but it's obviously quite risky. It also can't be done within the final two minutes of either half and it can't be done on fourth down. In those situations, only the fumbling player can recover and advance the ball.
Wait, what? What if a player deliberately fumbles the ball forward after he is beyond the line of scrimmage and after a forward pass has already been completed? Is that still considered a forward pass? What if the other team recovers that deliberate forward pass? Does that count as a fumble recovery or is it still a penalty for an illegal forward pass?
Yes, it's still considered a forward pass. If the defensive team catches it in the air, it is an interception; if it hits the ground, it is a dead ball. The "fumbling" team will be penalized 5 yards from the spot of the illegal pass along with a loss of down.
Would it? It is a live ball and if it was a forward pass, it would be dead. If it was after a forward pass or beyond the line of scrimmage, if it was a forward pass, that would result in a penalty. So how is it considered a forward pass?
I can't believe I'm taking it to this extreme, but just for the sake of absurdity:
[using the "your player/team" / "opposing team" designations]
If your player fumbles into the opposing team's end zone and opposing team picks it up, runs it out to the 1, gets hit and the ball then flies back and out of that end zone, I believe it is a safety against opposing team (team with last possession in field of play fumbling ball through its own end zone).
The officials treat all forward passes, legal or not, the same way while the ball is in play. The ball isn't blown dead when a player throws an illegal forward pass; the play is run to completion.
Given all the circumstances it's ridiculous to call the penalty (and I'm a Bears' fan). Had the Bears recovered in end zone the ball would have been moved out to spot of fumble and the half would have been over. Had the Steelers recovered it would have been a touchback and again end of half. The only far out scenario in which the intentional swatting would have prevented another outcome would be if a Steeler picked up the ball and started running and ended up advancing the ball past the goal line (where he could conceivably run for a TD or fumble back to the Bears who would then be able to advance it)
It was a clear and obvious illegal bat. The fault lies with the Pittsburgh player who committed the foul, not the officials for calling it.
True, but that is a totally different scenario. Under your scenario, using the Bears game to illustrate, Pittsburgh would have regained possession of the football by recovering Cooper's fumble and then fumbled again themselves. Note, under your scenario, it would not matter if Pittsburgh had exited the end zone before fumbling again. If they were trying to return the football and fumbled either inside or outside of the end zone, then it would be a safety if the fumbled football rolled out of the end zone.
I know, just going to the extreme, and eliminating the judgement call -- can we really trust the refs to determine what an attempted return is?
(emanating from the issue related to another application of the Bears' scenario when the refs didn't pick up intentional batting in a Seahawks' game a few years ago: LINK)
I know, just going to the extreme, and eliminating the judgement call -- can we really trust the refs to determine what an attempted return is?
(emanating from the issue related to another application of the Bears' scenario when the refs didn't pick up intentional batting in a Seahawks' game a few years ago: LINK)
I would hope we could trust the refs. To me it's pretty clear cut. Unless you take a knee and give yourself up in your end zone, then you are trying to return the football.
That's not right. If a Pittsburgh player recovered the ball in the end zone, and then fumbled the ball out of bounds while remaining in the end zone, it would be ruled a touchback and Pittsburgh's possession (and, in this case, the end of the period). This is because the impetus that put the ball in the end zone in the first place came from Chicago, not Pittsburgh. It would only be ruled a safety if the Pittsburgh player recovered the ball in the end zone, advanced the ball forward out of the end zone, and then fumbled backwards into the end zone and then out of bounds.
But when it hits the ground, wouldn't that end the play if it was a forward pass? What happens if the defender recovers it?
How about if he had batted it out of the endzone into the field of play?
Last edited:
Yes, the play would end as soon as the ball hit the ground, just like with any other forward pass. The penalty would then be enforced from the spot of the illegal pass. It is not treated as a fumble.
That's what happened in the game. Chicago fumbled the ball forward into the end zone. While scrambling for the ball, the Pittsburgh player committed an illegal bat and pushed the ball out of bounds in the end zone. Without the penalty, this would have resulted in a touchback, but because a penalty was committed, Chicago retained possession. The ball was spotted at the spot of the fumble (the Pittsburgh 1 yard line), the penalty was enforced half the distance to the goal from there (the Pittsburgh 1/2 yard line), and the period was extended by one untimed down because of the defensive penalty.
And if this had all happened on a PAT instead of a field goal, then it would be a 1 point safety, no? (I guess this scenario wasn't complicated and obscure enough for my liking . . . )
Correct, a 1 point safety. To date, that has never happened in the NFL, and only twice that we know of in FBS football.
If the Bears had blocked an extra point attempt instead of a FG attempt, Cooper's return would have counted for two points had he scored. Under what scenario would a 1 point score occur from that play?
If a defensive player recovers a blocked kick and proceeds to run the ball back but winds up being tackled in his own endzone, it counts as 1 point for the other team. It's very rare, but Brad Nessler was calling the game each time it's happened.
https://www.sbnation.com/videos/201...tate-oregon-texas-weird-rulebook-brad-nessler
Oh, I see what you mean. Yes, if Cooper had scored in that scenario the Bears would have scored 2 points.
There is a very unlikely scenario that could result in one point. Let's say that Cooper fumbles on the 1 yard line and a Pittsburgh player picks the ball up at that same point, then voluntarily carries the ball backwards into his own end zone, where he is tackled. That would result in a 1 point safety for Chicago. This has never happened in either college or pro football. It is the only way a team can finish a game with exactly 1 point.
