Invalid Fair Catch

[Simbio]

K punts to R. R1 gives an invalid fair catch signal and catches the ball and does not advance. One or two seconds after making the catch, K2 tackles R1.

[JRutledge]

First do not deal with the hit after the ball is dead. But that in your back pocket and deal with the first action.

You have an invalid fair catch signal. That would be PSK enforcement. So you would have a 5 yard penalty from where the ball was possessed against R (unless half the distance is an issue).

Then you would apply the penalty for K with a dead ball personal foul. Fifthteen yards after you have applied the previous foul (unless you have half the distance issues).

One fouls is a live ball, the other is a dead ball foul. You apply them differently. First and 10 with R in possession of the ball (unless you have half the distance issues )

Peace

[schmitty1973]

Yeah but if there's an invalid fair catch, does the whistle still blow once the receiver catches the ball? If not, then I don't see the point for the foul on K. If the official fails to hit the whistle when he's supposed to, how can you blame the K team for making a hit?

[JRutledge]

The rules are clear about what is a valid signal. If they give a "half-a@@" signal, you still get penalized. The official just blows the whistle.

And yes if they give an invalid signal that does not give the K the right to slug them. They do not get a free shot to hit a player that is still vulnerable player.

Peace

[SJoldguy]

Schmitty missed a very important tenant of football. It is all the players responsibility to know when the play is over and stop their action. If a runner is down and the official holds his whistle to insure no fumble, the defense has to avoid any late hits. The action of the play ends the play, not the officials whistle (unless inadvertant during a live ball.)

[SeanWest]

I just want to reiterate what SJoldguy said. I may be new at this but I do know that just because the man didn't blow his whistle doesn't mean the ball isn't dead.I think a lot of non-officials have trouble with this concept.

-SW---

[Simbio]

Thanks for your replies guys. My friend had this situation a couple days ago. He was the R on a 4 man crew. The line judge did nothing about the invalid fair catch signal, and I didn't get the detail on whether or not he blew his whistle when R caught the ball. However, the other 3 officials, excluding my friend the R, ruled that it should be kick catching interference and marched it off from the previous spot and made K re-kick. My friend believed (afterwards) that they should've at least penalized for a dead ball personal foul since the ball should've become dead when R possessed it (regardless if it was a valid or invalid fair catch signal.) I agreed with him, but also pointed out that they should've had a PSK penalty first, then the dead ball (as JRutledge pointed out as well.) I just wanted to make sure I was right, because I couldn't find the exact statement "a receiever is awarded protection after giving a fair catch signal whether valid or invalid," although common sense should tell you that the receiver is awarded protection. If anyone knows where it specifically mentions that, please let me know. The only thing I could find that does, is at the bottom of page 45 in either the rules or case book (I can't remember which.) Is there a more specific reference?

[Rich]

Originally posted by SeanWest
I just want to reiterate what SJoldguy said. I may be new at this but I do know that just because the man didn't blow his whistle doesn't mean the ball isn't dead.I think a lot of non-officials have trouble with this concept.

-SW---

And officials should get on board with it if they're not.

My biggest fear as a R is that we'll have a fair catch signal followed by a muffed punt and an IW because so many officials feel that they need to give a quick whistle to "protect R."

I cover every week in my pregame that the signal combined with R possession affords the protection, not the whistle, and that the BJ/LJ *must* ascertain possession before whistling.

On the original situation, the play is killed once R possesses the ball, invalid signal or not. I'm inclined to use judgment on whether K is expected to avoid contact -- if the signal is so bad that a reasonable non-official wouldn't see it as a signal, I may not hit K with a flag. If it's just an invalid signal that I'd expect K to react to, I'd hit K with a PF.

--Rich

[SeanWest]

Simbio:

6-5-3: "Only the receiver who gives a valid signal is afforded protection. ..."

also 6-5-5: "No receiver may advance the ball after a valid or invalid fair-catch signal has been given by any member of the receiving team."

To me, that sounds like in your situation the ball was dead at the catch but that the R player does not get protection and therefore you don't have kick catching interference. The question then is whether it was a late hit or not.

-SW---

[Simbio]

I don't know that kick catching interference would play a role in this particular situation (again, it was my friend's game, not mine.) I believe he told me the hit took place one or two seconds after the catch which would lead me to believe that the receiver had enough room to catch it. Nor do I know exactly what the receiver did to signal fair catch, my friend just said it was an invalid signal (so not the high over head side to side we read as valid in the books.)

SeanWest, I did read those references in the rule book last night, but I still think that if the signal can be reasonably interpreted as a fair catch signal, R should be awarded protection, whether it is valid or not. Its a safety issue, if nothing else.

Thoughts....?

[SeanWest]

I understand wanting to protect the safty of the players but you can't do that at the expense of ignoring the rules. IMHO, it's the job of the rule makers to determine what is and is not unsafe behavior and make the rules accordingly.

In this case, the rule clearly states that the R player is afforded protection only if he gives a VALID signal. It's not fair to penalize K because R didn't follow the rule and made a signal that K may not have seen or understood.

If you feel the hit by K was unwarranted or late or too rough you can still call the Personal Foul but you don't have kick catching interference.

-SW---

[Rich]

Originally posted by SeanWest
I understand wanting to protect the safty of the players but you can't do that at the expense of ignoring the rules. IMHO, it's the job of the rule makers to determine what is and is not unsafe behavior and make the rules accordingly.

In this case, the rule clearly states that the R player is afforded protection only if he gives a VALID signal. It's not fair to penalize K because R didn't follow the rule and made a signal that K may not have seen or understood.

If you feel the hit by K was unwarranted or late or too rough you can still call the Personal Foul but you don't have kick catching interference.

-SW---

Exactly. Just like any other late hit after the ball is dead.

[Simbio]

Originally posted by SeanWest
IMHO, it's the job of the rule makers to determine what is and is not unsafe behavior and make the rules accordingly.
-SW---

I agree with you, and in this situation, I certainly feel something needs to be added to the rule books. I love the hard hitting action of football, but I cringe to think of the receiver getting creamed because he was afforded no protection, simply because he gave no valid fair catch signal. Granted, a flags no going to keep him out of the hospital, but it doesn't let K's actions go unpenalized. And R would still get a penalty for the invalid fair catch. My fear is what if it leads to injury? I think it could, and SHOULD, be avoided, again as long as it can be reasonably interpretted as a fair catch signal (whether valid or invalid.)

I still feel that you have a PSK on R, and an dead ball on K....

[SJoldguy]

I've been away so i didn't comment earlier.

It is invalid fair catch signal and he is given on protection during the live ball. But he and all are protected from late hirts. 2nd is dead ball foulis

[PSU213]

Okay, this is off subject, but based on previous discussions, I love the "Zen" Miller thing!