View Single Post
  #30 (permalink)  
Old Thu Sep 10, 2009, 09:36am
ajmc ajmc is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,593
This sounds loke another example where some insist on "reading" common sense completely out of the solution. The NFHS rule regarding this situation differs from both the NCAA and NFL interpretations in that, the FC signal provides complete protection to a receiver prior to his contacting the ball in attempting to make a catch.

The verbiage of the rule is intended to provide that, unlike NCAA, once the attempt to catch the kick fails (muff, bobble, tip) that protection ends and the kick is fair game to either team. The basic idea of the FC is to provide an obvious (by means of a required clear signal) agreement from the receiver that he will not advance the kick in return for not being contacted to prevent catching the ball.

When there is no FC signal, such an agrrement doesn't exist, but the receiver is still entitled to the limited protection offered by NF: 6-5-6 (When any free or scrimmage kick is in flight, K shall not;"Touch the ball or R.....").

Case Book 6.5.6.D provides the detail in (b) that K is guilty of KCI because he did not provide, "R with an unmolested opportunity to catch the ball". The word used is "catch" not "touch". These two words are not interchangeable in relation to determining KCI.

The "touching" of a kick, that does not directly conclude with catching the kick, that is subsequently muffed, bobbled or tipped removes the exclusive right to possessing that kick enjoyed by R. However the "touching" that precedes completion of a catch (NF: 2-4-2) does not relieve K of it's responsibility to NOT deprive R from the "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball" included in the official interpretation of NF: 6-5-6, as relates specifically to Free and/or Scrimmage kicks.

This is NOT intended to be rocket science, R is entitled to "catch" a kick, without being contacted. If he chooses to give up the right to advance that kick after catching it, he can extend the protection against being contacted to after he makes the catch.

If he chooses NOT to add that extra protection, and retain the right to advance the caught kick, he can be legally contacted as soon as he COMPLETES the catch.

Suggesting that there is some observible interval between touching the kick, in the act of catching and actually securing possession by that (uniterrupted) catch is nonsense. We're talking in term of miliseconds, and suggesting that can even be reasonably determined is ridiculous.

There are times the verbiage used in multiple rules means the same thing, and times the verbiage used is NOT interchangable. The term is Fair CATCH, not Fair TOUCH and the appropriate penalty is NOT Kick TOUCHING interference.

Forget the word "simultaneous" it wioll only cause you trouble. Like being "Pregnant" you either are or you are not. Contact is either AFTER the catch is completed (and absent a FC signal) is perfectly legal, or contact is BEFORE the catch is completed and is a foul (KCI).

No matter how you decide it, you'll never see more than 50% of those watching agree with you.
Reply With Quote