Fed goaltending penalty enforcement

[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 ;-)

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by whitehat

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 ;-)

But everybody realizes that. Yet this particular rule provision specifically applies to touches by players of R, and the case book specifically contradicts it. No mention of touches by K in that context. You think it was a typo?

[HLin NC]

Ever see a dog chase it's tail?

[Altor]

No it doesn't Robert. The rule book prevents K from touching the ball by making the ball dead immediately. The case book allows R to touch the ball and keeps the ball alive long enough to determine if the FG was good, which is consistent with the rule.