[MJT]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But there'd still be no incentive for K to block R into the ball when K could try for the ball themselves. In the latter case, if the ball goes OOB following the touch by K beyond the NZ in NCAA (last I knew), it's not a free kick OOB either. (Last touching by K is significant in NFL rules, however.) So why should R have penalty options for getting forced into a ball that goes OOB, when they wouldn't have such options if K touched it themselves beyond the NZ?

Look at the incentives. Suppose the free kicked ball is rolling near a sideline between the goal line & R's restraining line. Under the rule you propose, R has the incentive, instead of playing the ball themselves, to station themselves just in front & in-field of the ball, blocking K from recovery and secure in the knowledge that if the ball doesn't roll out of bounds untouched on its own, K might force R into the ball and likely cause it to go OOB. Don't you want R to have the incentive to play the free kick themselves rather than camping over it like that?

Robert

You are not understanding what I am saying. I am saying, if R is being blocked and gets blocked into the ball and that ball untouched by another player goes OOB's, I think it should still be considered a FKOOB's.