Fed goaltending penalty enforcement

[Robert Goodman]

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.

[flaghappy]

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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by flaghappy

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.

[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

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by flaghappy

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.

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

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.

[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 ;-)

[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?