Kickoff from the 5 yard line?

[BIG UMP]

No Rev. they fouled up the enforcement.

[Robert Goodman]

I'm still trying to figure out the choices team R has after a free kick to out-of-bounds when there's not enough distance from the previous spot to the goal line to take the previous-spot+25-yards option. The only thing I've gotten here is that they just can't take that choice, no specific alternative for that case.

[HLin NC]

That option is removed.


6.1.9 SITUATION H:

Team K, after accepting the penalties for multiple R fouls, is now free kicking from R's 20-yard line. In attempting to onside kick, the ball goes out bounds untouched in the field of play.

RULING: R may take the ball at the inbounds spot, or accept the 5-yard penalty and have K re-kick from R's 25-yard line.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I'm still trying to figure out the choices team R has after a free kick to out-of-bounds when there's not enough distance from the previous spot to the goal line to take the previous-spot+25-yards option. The only thing I've gotten here is that they just can't take that choice, no specific alternative for that case.

Confused.

If you have the answer... why are you still trying to figure it out?

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Confused.

If you have the answer... why are you still trying to figure it out?

I didn't know it'd been answered in a case book.

[Texas Aggie]

That option is removed.

Do you really need a case play to tell you that? (Not trying to sound snotty -- so apologize if that comes across that way.)

Now, if someone were to argue that the distance puts the ball in Team B's end zone and that results in a touchback, THEN I agree. But a potential enforcement spot that makes the next snap not possible (without further comment) to me, is unavailable.

Are there any exceptions to this idea in either Fed or NCAA? I can't think of any in the latter.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Now, if someone were to argue that the distance puts the ball in Team B's end zone and that results in a touchback, THEN I agree. But a potential enforcement spot that makes the next snap not possible (without further comment) to me, is unavailable.

It does make me think of the case where kicking from R's 10 to the GL makes an onside kick recovery effectively impossible....

But then again, I've never seen a kickoff from anywhere near R's GL. I think the farthest I've ever seen is from R's 45.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Suudy

It does make me think of the case where kicking from R's 10 to the GL makes an onside kick recovery effectively impossible....

And if K wants to preserve that possibility, they can decline the distance that'd make it impossible.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

Do you really need a case play to tell you that? (Not trying to sound snotty -- so apologize if that comes across that way.)

Now, if someone were to argue that the distance puts the ball in Team B's end zone and that results in a touchback, THEN I agree. But a potential enforcement spot that makes the next snap not possible (without further comment) to me, is unavailable.

What confuses the matter is your writing "enforcement spot". If it were a penalty, there'd be a half-the-distance enforcement. But it was pointed out to me that it's not a penalty, just a choice that the non-offending team has. It's like a spot of first touching, which also is not referenced as a penalty.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I didn't know it'd been answered in a case book.

It has, but that's not what I was referring to ... you said, "The only thing I've gotten here is that they just can't take that choice"

... which is the answer to your question.

[Texas Aggie]

What confuses the matter is your writing "enforcement spot".

I said, "POTENTIAL enforcement spot." And by that I meant a choice that became unavailable because it was impossible. Sort of like a loss of down penalty on a foul by Team B. However, that exception is clarified.

If that's not what you're stating, then I'm not sure of your point. I reread the issue and my response and it is relevant.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Texas Aggie

I said, "POTENTIAL enforcement spot." And by that I meant a choice that became unavailable because it was impossible. Sort of like a loss of down penalty on a foul by Team B. However, that exception is clarified.

If that's not what you're stating, then I'm not sure of your point. I reread the issue and my response and it is relevant.

It's just that the word "enforcement" is usually associated with penalties in football.

In Fed the wording of the provision (6-1-8) is anomalous, in that it states a "shall not" in the opening sentence, and references "penalty" for the act in choices a & c., and is apparently included in the "PENALTY:" portion of 6-1, and AFAIK can still be offset by an opposing live-ball foul, but 6-1-8 choice b doesn't act like it's part of the usual penalty system. In fact it looks most like a team making choice b is declining a penalty.

It would be better if b and c were combined to say, "Decline the penalty and put the ball in play at the inbounds spot either where the ball went out of bounds or 25 yards beyond the previous spot." Then in case of a live ball foul by R, 10-2-1b would apply, precluding team R from taking choice 6-1-8b. And if the rules writers were really thorough, it'd say "25 yards beyond the previous spot, if that puts the spot in the field of play."

BTW, I've been installed as the rules editor for the American Sevens Football League. They needed one badly.