Again, it is not ego to ask you a question of what rule was violated. It is not ego to ask you to look up in the rulebook and tell us what you have.

I was at a meeting for another sport today and that was exactly what was asked of the supervisor of everyone in the room to explain their answer.

What the hell are you going to do when coaches start asking you the very same thing and they know this is not illegal? Is their ego out of control too?

Peace

There's always a tension on these boards between "giving a man a fish" and "teaching a man to fish."

Here, the latter was chosen; on another recent thread (first and 10 or first and 16 from the 16 yard line) the former was chosen.

It's hard to tell which will be used (and some might use one method; while someone else chooses the other on the same thread), but wither way, the person asking the question should not bite the hand that feeds him.

Having said that, this non-official asks, does it matter whether the blocker in the OP was behind or in advance of the LOS? I think so, but I don't know for certain (and, probably 99% of the time, it's going to be behind in cay event).

Since we are not all in a room together to discern each other's facial features and body language, context is difficult in this forum.

Over the years of participating in these on-line forums, I have found it wise to refer to our resources such as rule and case books and Reddings guide prior to responding. These boards have been a great tool to increase learning.

However, it is prudent to be able to support your answers or theories here, much like a college level class or discussion group. Being encouraged to "look it up" helps make you a better official by forcing you to familiarize yourself with the tools that you have available. If you genuinely are confused or clueless on where to find the answer, its best to just be up front about it. There are some who are merely lazy on doing research and want a quick answer.

There can be a line between being a tough instructor and being an a-hole and sometimes personalities get in the way but a tougher mindset is required to survive in this avocation. The guy that was my primary trainer back when I started was tough on me at times but I feel that it was beneficial to me .

This would be the correct call, if the second kick was not a drop kick, punt or place kick. From your post, it is not clear to me. If the second kick was a strike of the loose ball on the ground, you've got an illegal kick foul. 2-24-4, 2-24-9.

But...there's nothing to look up here. You can't find anything in the rule book to say this is legal. Most stuff that's legal is just not illegal. The book can't list everything you might do that's legal.

Bob, it does matter (but it would be the "expanded neutral zone" not the LOS). Touching of a kick by K in or behind the expanded neutral zone is ignored. Touching by K beyond the expanded neutral zone may be "first touching" with many possible results, but usually results in R getting the ball.

The kicking game can be full of surprises!

The general principle in all NFHS sports is:
If it’s not proscribed as being illegal, then it’s legal.

So, if you can’t find a rule or case play that forbids an action (such as a second kick from behind the LOS), it’s quite likely OK.

Sorry, I've been as kind as possible, but you're just looking for reasons to be offended. If you aren't willing to put any effort into getting better yourself, why should we help you?

No more post about egos. They....and you....will be deleted.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Pro

Maybe your "ego" is not allowing you to understand the answer. It is simply not illegal. There is nothing that suggests this situation you gave is illegal. If it is not covered in the rules as illegal, then it is legal. It is not about what it should be or what you might think. So clearly you are not reading the rulebook enough if you keep trying to get an answer that honestly has already been implied and answered in many forms.

Peace

Not just NFHS...that's a gen'l principle used by everyone in writing rules for sports whose play flows similarly to football. The presumption is of action's being legal. It's not an absolute presumption; there's always a loophole in such rules about "travesty of the game" or similar criterion that makes it illegal to go obviously beyond the bounds of the spirit of the game. You know, like turning a fire hose on the players, opening a trap door, or pulsing the lighting to induce seizures.

Some games are of the type where procedures are spelled out so as to give the players a limited range of choices: You can do A, B, or C, period. But games like football have their rules written more like, you can do anything you can think of except A, B, or C.

We're also assuming everyone on here is an official and not a fan with a question or a complaint.

Well, he kind of implied that he was an official. And if you are not an official, make yourself known. It is pretty obvious that these are officials talking if you spend any time on this site.

Peace

A logical reference to understand and address this question seems like NFHS 2-24, Articles 3 through 9, which define allowed(legal) kicks, and what constitutes an "Illegal" kick (Art 9).
What was described does NOT seem to fit Articles 6, 7 or 8 and therefore would fall under Article 9. NFHS 6-2-1 and 9-7-1 add clarification (IF clarification is what is actually being sought)

NCAA: legal play.