Fed goaltending penalty enforcement

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by 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.

Seems it wasn't a typo, it was an eye-o: I'd misread "K" as "R" in 6-3-1(b). And now the rule makes sense & the case book is consistent w it.