The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 06, 2016, 05:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Fed goaltending penalty enforcement

This came out in a thread at Coach Huey's. I know that in Federation rules, a player of the receiving team jumping to deflect a field goal attempt, where the jumping occurs in proximity to the goal rather than the neutral zone, is illegal batting, the ball being allowed to stay alive only as long as it still has a chance to score. What I can't figure out is the enforcement. I've pored over the provisions and can't figure out the priorities in resolution between post scrimmage kick and fouls behind the receiving team's goal line. My guess is that it's half the distance from the 20 yard line, team R getting a first down.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 06, 2016, 07:39pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: maryland
Posts: 4
This is not illegal batting. The result of the play is a touchback. The receivers will get the ball on the 20 yard line. Rule 6-3-1b and 2016 casebook page 47 6-3-1 situation B.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 06, 2016, 09:09pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaghappy View Post
This is not illegal batting. The result of the play is a touchback. The receivers will get the ball on the 20 yard line. Rule 6-3-1b and 2016 casebook page 47 6-3-1 situation B.
Interesting! So the ball's touching the player supersedes the player's batting of the ball, as per 2-44, and the player doesn't have to succeed in deflecting the ball away from the goal.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 09, 2016, 01:12pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: maryland
Posts: 4
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.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 09, 2016, 01:17pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: maryland
Posts: 4
meant to say if it is deflected between the uprights and above the crossbar it is a field goal
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Wed Nov 09, 2016, 02:15pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaghappy View Post
This is not illegal batting. The result of the play is a touchback. The receivers will get the ball on the 20 yard line. Rule 6-3-1b and 2016 casebook page 47 6-3-1 situation B.
That's a good case book find.

I believe this is a difference from NCAA which would regard this as an illegal batting foul.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2016, 10:30am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by flaghappy View Post
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.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2016, 10:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
That's a good case book find.

I believe this is a difference from NCAA which would regard this as an illegal batting foul.
Yes, by their 9-4-1(c). 2-11-5 & 6-3-1(b) combine to say this is not "blocking a scrimmage kick" (because of where it occurs relative to the neutral zone) so 9-4-1(b) doesn't apply.

In NFL this is treated as an unfair act. Their provision was adopted ~50 years ago.

So in NFL & NCAA, better go up with both hands, and then you're trying to catch the ball, not bat it, and if you muff it away from the goal in the process, that doesn't appear to be illegal.

In rugby if the ball's still rising as it approaches the bar, I think it's treated in both Union & League as "charging down" or "rebound" of an opponent's kick, and is not a knock-on if the ball is deflected forward (relative to the player doing it). If the ball's descending, then the knock-on laws apply.

In Canadian football, amateur & pro, goaltending like this is not illegal, but if the ball is deflected forward to an offside teammate I think it's an offside pass.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2016, 02:38pm
Archaic Power Monger
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 5,983
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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.
__________________
Even if you’re on the right track, you’ll get run over if you just sit there. - Will Rogers
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2016, 04:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by Welpe View Post
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.)
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Thu Nov 10, 2016, 07:56pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2016
Location: maryland
Posts: 4
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 11, 2016, 09:19am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Thanks, flaghappy.

Quote:
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.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 11, 2016, 11:14am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 236
Quote:
Originally Posted by Robert Goodman View Post
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 ;-)
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 12, 2016, 11:23am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,875
Quote:
Originally Posted by whitehat View Post
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?
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 12, 2016, 09:15pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
Cool

Ever see a dog chase it's tail?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Penalty enforcement stewsport Football 15 Mon Oct 19, 2009 06:32pm
Penalty enforcement BigFarns Football 7 Fri Sep 08, 2006 12:32pm
Penalty Enforcement on TDs BoBo Football 7 Tue Oct 05, 2004 01:09pm
penalty enforcement yankeesfan Football 4 Sat Aug 28, 2004 09:22am
Penalty Enforcement Ed Maeder Football 2 Sun Sep 14, 2003 08:50pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 08:50am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1