You make the call

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

What makes you say intent of the kicker doesn't matter? 9-7-1 says "No player shall intentionally kick the ball other than as a free or scrimmage kick." And since that's the thing that makes it subject to penalty, then the intention of the player is what it's all about. Looks to me like the intention of the player was to make a place kick. The fact that he didn't succeed is irrelevant.

That strikes me as a rather bizarre way of looking at it. I agree with you, he did indeed intend to make a place kick. So we agree that this clause is where intent matters - and we have satisfied that part. That's necessary - but not sufficient.

Why? Because the kick has to be a legal free or scrimmage kick, by black letter of the rule. It can't be a legal scrimmage kick in this instance if it's not controlled on the ground or a kicking tee by a teammate. And it isn't - intent doesn't matter here, for this part. It's either controlled or not. And in this case, it's not, which means it's not a legal scrimmage kick.

So we've established intent and we've determined that, by rule, it's not a legal scrimmage kick. How is it anything other than illegal kicking?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by scrounge

That strikes me as a rather bizarre way of looking at it. I agree with you, he did indeed intend to make a place kick. So we agree that this clause is where intent matters - and we have satisfied that part. That's necessary - but not sufficient.

Why? Because the kick has to be a legal free or scrimmage kick, by black letter of the rule. It can't be a legal scrimmage kick in this instance if it's not controlled on the ground or a kicking tee by a teammate. And it isn't - intent doesn't matter here, for this part. It's either controlled or not. And in this case, it's not, which means it's not a legal scrimmage kick.

So we've established intent and we've determined that, by rule, it's not a legal scrimmage kick. How is it anything other than illegal kicking?

AFAICT, it's a nothing. It's not a legal kick, and it's not illegally kicking the ball as penalizable by 9-7.

Sometimes the definition section of Fed rules helps, but in other cases it seems to go over the same ground as the substantive rules w/o clarifying. This seems to be one of those latter instances. In the definitions, "a kick is the intentional striking of the ball with the...foot," which this is. Then in art. 4 it defines "a legal scrimmage kick", giving the same requirements as discussed here, and in article 9 it says "an illegal kick is any intentional striking of the ball with the...foot which does not comply with" those requirements. So the definition says this is an illegal kick. But what good does that do when 9-7-1, where the penalty is, does not reference the defined term "illegal kick", but instead is a new departure? It would've been so simple to just say, "No player may make an illegal kick," & specify the penalty for that. But noooo, it just says, "No player shall intentionally kick the ball other than as a free or scrimmage kick." What was the point of defining a term that doesn't get used? Rule 2 has been worked over by people who didn't pay att'n to the substantive provisions of the book, it seems.

I suppose you could parse 9-7-1 in a way to make this come out as illegal kicking, taking the "intentionally kick the ball" as a separate factual determination, and then observing that the result was not a legal scrimmage kick, but usually when the word "intentionally" is used like this in the rules, it applies broadly to the entire action. So I think it's supposed to refer to the type of kick the player intended to make, not just the mere fact of kicking the ball, fair or foul.

It also seems harsh to make this a strict liability issue, so that the team of the player who merely follows thru with the kick as the ball starts to come loose (and probably couldn't avoid kicking the ball if he wanted to) is penalized, when that team is already getting nothing good out of the play. However, it would be consistent with the ruling in NCAA. Still, if they want the same outcome, they should word their rules the same.

[scrounge]

Was it a legal free or scrimmage kick? No - it didn't meet the very clear definition since it was in no way controlled by a teammate on the ground or a legal kicking tee.

So, now that we've established that it was something other than a free or scrimmage kick, did he intentionally kick it? Yep...trying to say "well, he intended to kick a legal scrimmage kick but it turns out it wasn't a legal scrimmage kick but how could he have known that or it was just the follow thru or the angle of the sun or..." is beyond tortuous. He tried to kick the ball, he kicked the ball. We're done here.

I think you're trying to wedge this into a pre-determined outcome with what may be an overly strict rule, but that is the rule nonetheless IMO.

[ajmc]

Is it me, or do more of these questions and answers seem to be about precise grammar and language, a lot more than football. Are we really able to finitely distinguish whether, "the holder reaching for the ball. Holder loses contact with ball, but before it falls all the way over", and whether or not the holder maintained "control" until the kicker's foot contacted the ball.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Is it me, or do more of these questions and answers seem to be about precise grammar and language, a lot more than football.

How else are the rules makers to convey what they mean? They can't spend forever acting out possible scenarios in front of us & saying how they should be ruled.

Fed has defined a term, "illegal kick", but not made conforming changes as to "illegally kicking the ball", which was pre-existing.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

How else are the rules makers to convey what they mean? They can't spend forever acting out possible scenarios in front of us & saying how they should be ruled. .

For the past 100, or so years, the rule makers concerns have been expressed through written rules, supported by updated official interpretations (Case Book examples), annual, official, Points of Emphasis, extensive Association training and discussion all intended to establish and support the solid judgment of competent, impartial and experienced professionals interpreting, and enforcing, the rule makers intentions.

Although somewhat short of perfect, the process has been working exceptionally well and continues to offer better prospects than constant nit-picking to try and fit hypothetical instances that may never happen.

The current system, despite it's occasional flaws, is very likely the best option currently available.

[Canned Heat]

Well....this ought to help this discussion.

https://forum.officiating.com/footba...k-options.html

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by scrounge

So, now that we've established that it was something other than a free or scrimmage kick, did he intentionally kick it? Yep...trying to say "well, he intended to kick a legal scrimmage kick but it turns out it wasn't a legal scrimmage kick but how could he have known that or it was just the follow thru or the angle of the sun or..." is beyond tortuous. He tried to kick the ball, he kicked the ball. We're done here.

So when a player throws a forward pass intentionally, and the pass winds up in an area not occupied by an eligible receiver on that team, is that intentional grounding? Not necessarily, because "intentionally" has to be read in its scope over the whole sentence. It has to be thrown intentionally into an area w no receiver to be grounding.

[scrounge]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

So when a player throws a forward pass intentionally, and the pass winds up in an area not occupied by an eligible receiver on that team, is that intentional grounding? Not necessarily, because "intentionally" has to be read in its scope over the whole sentence. It has to be thrown intentionally into an area w no receiver to be grounding.

I'm not sure of the relevance of this tangent, since that rule clearly includes a reason qualifier, that it's only a foul if "intentionally thrown to save loss of yardage or to conserve time."

I think this discussion has run its course.