Case Book issue on new kicking infractions
 

Reading the case book, it seems to contradict the new rule on options for fouls during kicks. My understanding is say if the kicking team has a illegal formation, the receiving team should have two options: Either rekick or tact-on the foul at end of the run? Your thoughts?

I believe FED will come out with an interp saying exactly that. The purpose of the rule is to prevent rekicks in as many instances as possible.

To be accurate, however, the tack-on would be from the dead-ball spot — not necessarily the end of a run.

There's a few other interpretations that need to be issued as well.

Standard FED Rules, no state-specific modifications

Situation 1: First possession series of overtime: 4th and Goal from the 10, K lines up for a field goal. Field goal is no good, and K is flagged for holding.
Can R enforce the penalty from the succeeding spot and have 1st and Goal at the 5?

Situation 2: Second possession series of overtime, score tied. 4th and Goal from the 10, K lines up for a field goal. Field goal is no good, and K is flagged for holding.
If R takes the ball first in the second OT period, can they have first and goal from the 5?
If K takes the ball first in the second OT, do we have to decline the penalty? (assuming R doesn't want K to replay 4th down, which they never would).

Situation 3: Score tied. K punts on the last play of the 4th quarter, and is flagged for holding during the kick. The play ends without either team scoring (so we're headed to OT).
If R gets the ball first in OT, can they have 1st and Goal from the 5, no matter who ended up with the ball at the end of the punt?


I sent these questions to my associations rules interpreter last night, his response was "I don't know", which might be the first time in history that he's ever been stumped on a rule interpretation. :D

You aren't alone...all sorts of these questions are looming out there and no state association head is apparently ready to address these in a cut and dry fashion right now from what I'm hearing and seeing all over the place. I'm surprised it hasn't happened yet (revisions/clarifications/examples)

Every time we have a Fed rule change, the law of unintended consequenses rears its ugly head. The horsecollar rule took several years to hash out fully.

Here's another one that needs clarification

Rule 6-1-9 states that if K causes a free kick to go out of bounds, R has the following choices:

Accept a 5 yard penalty from previous spot and have K re-kick
Accept a 5 yard penalty from succeeding spot (new)
Put the ball in play at inbounds spot 25 yards beyond previous spot
Decline penalty and put ball in play at inbounds spot

So if R chooses to put the ball in play 25 yards from the previous spot, do they get another 5 yards added to it?

I could be wrong, but I will say no (unless the ball went out of bounds 25 yards beyond the previous spot).

I understand the rule revision to mean NO. The "new" option seems clearly intended as an "additional" choice to the existing options, NOT an enhancement to those options, so now (in support of the effort to reduce re-kicks) there is a "new" choice.

The offended team now gets to choose a, b, c OR d (NOT add this new option to any of the existing options

Illegal formation as in less than 4 players on one side of the kicker? That should be treated as a dead ball foul, so new kick rules don't apply.

I agree. Now in thinking about the new choice, I thought to myself, "when can one have a succeeding spot on a free kick that goes OOB untouched by R?" Answer: if there was first touching by K and then it goes out of bounds. Then R can choose to have the ball at the spot of first touching (the succeeding spot) and tack on 5 yards from there. Make sense?

Situation 1: Decline K's penalty, why would R give K another chance at a field goal?

Situation 2: Same as above

Situation 3: If the penalty is accepted, there must be one untimed down. If declined, then go to OT, no yardage assessed.

Update on my previous response;

As long as R is the next team to put the ball in play, the tack on rule applies. So in Situation 1, since R would be the next team to put the ball in play, they may accept a 5 yard penalty enforced from the succeeding spot, so 1st and goal from the 5 yard line.

Situation 2: From the play description, it's apparent that R was first on offense and K was second. If that's the case then K would be the next team to put the ball in play (3rd OT period) so R should decline the foul and K would put the ball in play to begin the 3rd OT period from it's usual spot.

Situation 3: In this play, I think the penalty must be declined as it won't be known who will be the next to put the ball in play after the OT coin toss. Is it possible to hold off on any penalty enforcement until the coin toss in OT.

I guess it depends which rules you follow for OT. We use the NCAA OT rules (with some needed modifications), so only major fouls bridge to the other half inning of OT.

Common sense application is that this would not bridge.

Perhaps, but NFHS: 6-2-5 advises, "The right of R to take the ball at the spot of first-touching byK ic cancelled if R touches the kick and thereafter commits a foul during the down or if the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down" .

Update on my previous response:

If on a free kick, the kicking team has an illegal formation, i.e. less than 4 players on either side of the kicker, it's treated as a dead ball foul so the new kicking rules don't apply. If the illegal formation was during a scrimmage kick then the penalty yardage may be added on at the succeeding spot.