Fed goaltending penalty enforcement

[flaghappy]

If the ball is deflected away from the goalposts it is considered a dead ball and a touchback. If it is deflected between the goalposts and above the crossbar it is a field goal.

[flaghappy]

meant to say if it is deflected between the uprights and above the crossbar it is a field goal

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by flaghappy

If the ball is deflected away from the goalposts it is considered a dead ball and a touchback. If it is deflected between the goalposts and above the crossbar it is a field goal.

Why doesn't 6-3-1(b) produce a touchback no matter the subsequent flight of the ball? What would be the point of the phrase "or in flight touches a K player in R's end zone" in 6-3-1(b) if the touchback weren't automatic? After all, if the ball were deflected away, then the part "after breaking the play of R's goal line is unsuccessful" alone would produce the result you claim.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Why doesn't 6-3-1(b) produce a touchback no matter the subsequent flight of the ball?

Because that's the Federation interpretation. I'm not trying to be flip but that's pretty much what we have to go on.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Because that's the Federation interpretation. I'm not trying to be flip but that's pretty much what we have to go on.

You mean the Case Book? Would you mind quoting from it, please? (Always interesting to find a contradiction between it & the actual rules.)

[flaghappy]

Casebook: During a field-goal attempt,R1,who is in the end zone,leaps up and blocks the ball away from the crossbar. Ruling: touchback. The touching by R1 in the end zone causes the ball to become dead, unless the ball caroms through the goal, thus scoring a field goal. This is not illegal batting, as the touching caused the kick to fail.

6-3-1 It is a touchback if any free kick or scrimmage kick:

b. Which is a three-point field-goal attempt, in flight touches a K player in R's end zone, or after breaking the plane of R's goal line is unsuccessful.

[Robert Goodman]

Thanks, flaghappy.

Originally Posted by flaghappy

Casebook: During a field-goal attempt,R1,who is in the end zone,leaps up and blocks the ball away from the crossbar. Ruling: touchback. The touching by R1 in the end zone causes the ball to become dead, unless the ball caroms through the goal, thus scoring a field goal. This is not illegal batting, as the touching caused the kick to fail.

6-3-1 It is a touchback if any free kick or scrimmage kick:

b. Which is a three-point field-goal attempt, in flight touches a K player in R's end zone, or after breaking the plane of R's goal line is unsuccessful.

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.

[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 ;-)