Punt question

[DrMooreReferee]

Its 4th and 10 from K's 40. K punts the ball downfield and the ball is rolling at R's 35 when K50 blocks R22 into the ball, the ball then ricochets away and strikes R15 in the leg. K17 then falls on the ball at R's 25 yard line.

Ruling???????

[JRutledge]

NF Ruling.

K's ball on R's 25 yard line.

The first touching by R was forced touching and is ignored but the second touch is not, so you give the ball to K.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

Its 4th and 10 from K's 40. K punts the ball downfield and the ball is rolling at R's 35 when K50 blocks R22 into the ball, the ball then ricochets away and strikes R15 in the leg. K17 then falls on the ball at R's 25 yard line.

Ruling???????

NFHS 6-2-4 regarding scrimmage kicks, contains the same language as 6-1-6 relating to free kicks regarding "forced touching". It seems clear the intent of both is NOT to allow K to gain an advantage by forcing R into contact with the ball, so as to allow K to maintain possession after recovering the loose ball resulting from the forced touching.

As you descrbe this play, K50's block clearly forced R22 into the ball and the force of that collision propelled the ball into touching R15. As you describe it, I would consider the touching by R15 to also be a direct result of the forced contact initiated by K50 on R22 and therefore ignored, giving R possession of the ball where it was possessed by K17, ending the kick and the play.

[bisonlj]

I'm going to agree with JRut on this play. If R15 did not want to touch the ball he should not have been anywhere near it. R22 was exonerated because he was blocked into the ball but R15 is not so lucky. It's no different than a ball taking an unexpected bounce or the ball hitting an R player because he wasn't looking.

[JRutledge]

My understanding of "forced touching" has always been as a result the individual being blocked, not someone else. Now if there is some case play that supports that I would retract my original opinion, but that is not my understanding of the interpretation of how these plays are to be ruled.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bisonlj

I'm going to agree with JRut on this play. If R15 did not want to touch the ball he should not have been anywhere near it. R22 was exonerated because he was blocked into the ball but R15 is not so lucky. It's no different than a ball taking an unexpected bounce or the ball hitting an R player because he wasn't looking.

I don't think we're going to see this exact play in the Case Book for reference any time soon, so it's likely going to be a matter of judgment based on a unique situation.

R15 may well have gotten safely away from the loose ball until
K50 knocked R22 into it, possibly redirecting and propelling the ball at R15, we don't know. It might make a difference, in judgment, whether R15 was really close to the contact between K50 and R22, or far enough away that he coulda/shoulda avoided being contacted by the ball.

6-2-4 seems pretty clear that the "idea" is to exempt R from being touched by the loose ball when K is responsible for what happens. That seems like a judgment call by the covering official who will have the opportunity to respond to exactly what he sees.

[Robert Goodman]

The rules makers could simplify these situations by deeming forced touching to be touching by the side that did the forcing. As it stands, however, I can't credit ajmc's interpret'n. When you hear the "poison" call, you should run away.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't think we're going to see this exact play in the Case Book for reference any time soon, so it's likely going to be a matter of judgment based on a unique situation.

R15 may well have gotten safely away from the loose ball until
K50 knocked R22 into it, possibly redirecting and propelling the ball at R15, we don't know. It might make a difference, in judgment, whether R15 was really close to the contact between K50 and R22, or far enough away that he coulda/shoulda avoided being contacted by the ball.

6-2-4 seems pretty clear that the "idea" is to exempt R from being touched by the loose ball when K is responsible for what happens. That seems like a judgment call by the covering official who will have the opportunity to respond to exactly what he sees.

I agree that we are not likely going to see an interpretation officially that suggests what you are saying. But I think that reasoning is more about they never envisioned that a "double hit" would be interpreted as part of that language. I think it is a stretch to suggest that we are to ignore or interpret what touch after what is described as forced touching takes place and what is considered to be ignored. I think the rule is clear on this and rather consistent in how they have described these situations to be handled.

Peace

[ajmc]

The closest Case Book reference I can find is Situation 4, NFHS 6.2, where KI and RI are blocking dowfield as a kick is loose. K2 legally bats the ball into the preoccupided R1. The ruling is the touching (being touched by R1) is ignored following the logic of the rule that K2 is responsible for the motion that propelled the ball into R1.

In the sample play, it suggests that K50, in effect used R22 (legally blocking him into the loose ball) as the means of providing the motion to propell the loose ball into R15. Since R22 is unquestionably relieved of the responsibility of redirecting the movement of the ball, as his contact with it is ignored, the responsibility remains with K50, also absolving R15 of that accidental contact.

It seems the clear intent of NFHS 6-2-5 is to absolve R of the responsibility of touching the loose ball when the touching is a direct resuly of action caused by K.

[JRutledge]

Well that play you reference is not the play we are discussing. This is a ricochet after a forced touching. I do not think the rules go that far to absolve R from touching a ball. And if that is the case, how far away to we consider them to be not responsible for a touch? Two yards? Five yards? Twenty yards?

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that play you reference is not the play we are discussing. This is a ricochet after a forced touching. I do not think the rules go that far to absolve R from touching a ball. And if that is the case, how far away to we consider them to be not responsible for a touch? Two yards? Five yards? Twenty yards?

As mentioned above, this is a judgment call on the part of the covering official. Same as judging whether a muffed fumble would have gone into the EZ on its own without the muff.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

As mentioned above, this is a judgment call on the part of the covering official. Same as judging whether a muffed fumble would have gone into the EZ on its own without the muff.

I do not think this is so much of a judgment call as what the rule allows or suggest should be called. If they have defined forced touching, then if that is what we rule. It is hard to suggest that every other contact with the ball applies when the definition does not suggest clearly what has been said here as applying.

Peace

[CT1]

Same principle. Would have the ball touched R15 without K50's impetus?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Same principle. Would have the ball touched R15 without K50's impetus?

Does the rulebook use the term "impetus?"

If not then that is a stretch. I am sure I will discuss this situation with others as a way to see what they think, but I doubt seriously they will simply agree with your assessement of this play. It is one thing to bat the ball towards someone on purpose and to be hit as a result of being near the ball when you should not be.

Peace

[bisonlj]

One philosophy I've heard (more at the NCAA level but also at the HS level) is in order to rule the player was blocked into the ball and thus absolved of touching, he needs to almost be picked up and dropped on the ball. Just because he's engaged in a block and touches the ball doesn't mean he was blocked into it. Get away from the ball if you don't want to touch it. He's not absolved if he's by himself and doesn't realize the ball is coming down on him.

Using this philosophy I lean toward the second touching by R to be a legitimate touching by R. Get away from the ball! Far far away!