[whitehat]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Thanks, flaghappy.


Wow. So they just interpolated the bit I bolded, and nullified the bit I underlined. Probably they thought, "It makes no sense to reward the defender for merely touching the ball (which could be a difficult event to see anyway), so the rules committee must not have meant to do so."

But why'd they write "the touching caused the kick to fail", when in this interpretation, it didn't? Maybe the Case Book, as long as this interpretation is asserted, meant to say, "the deflection of the ball away from the goal caused the kick to fail". Or maybe should've just left that clause out, because it weakens their assertion.

Robert, I believe the difference is in who touches the ball in the EZ. If K touches it it is unsuccessful FG. (Possible reasoning: K can't help their own kick get through the uprights.) But if R touches it then it can score a field goal. Possible Reasoning: R should have left it alone and it wouldn't have gone through the uprights ;-)