Fed rules.
<b>Situation 1:</b> During a free or scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, R99 is leveled just after he touches the ball in flight, but before completing the catch.
<b>Situation 2:</b> Same thing, but R99 has made a valid fair-catch signal.

In situation 1, is there a foul? If so, what is the rule justification? 6-5-4 says that KCI restrictions do not apply after R has touched the kick (beyond the NZ for a scrimmage kick).

In situation 2, everyone has a flag, but again, what's the rule justification? Fair catch is defined very nicely in 2-9-1 as protecting the receiver from being blocked or tackled. 6-5-3 tells us again that only the receiver making the signal is afforded protection. There are multiple places (6-5-1, 9-3-3) that give us a penalty for when the receiver giving the signal makes a block. But none of 2-9, 6-5, or 9-4 (personal fouls) lists a penalty for hitting a receiver who has given a fair catch signal. Obviously, a hit after the catch is completed is a dead ball PF, but it seems to me there's a small window in which we have no rule coverage for calling a foul.

That said, I'm throwing the flag anyway.

NCAA - KCI in #2, the receiver is given protection to complete the catch when a valid signal is given.

Nonsense.. 6-5-6 defines the foul for KCI. You can have KCI with or without a signal for a Fair catch.

In both you examples, you have KCI.
#2 has been covered, #1 the receiver has not been given an oportunity to catch the ball.

I respectfully disagree.

As soon as the receiver touches the ball he is free game. There's no "halo rule" or rule that says you have have to wait until he has possesion before he can be hit. Great play by the kicking team!

I agree with Patton.

6-5-6 states
...This prohibition applies even when no fair-catch signal is given, but it does not apply after a free kick has been touched by a receiver, or after a scrimmage kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time of touching.

The case book describes R as having "an unmolested opportunity to catch the ball". Failure to provide it is KCI. In my opinion in hitting R a split second after touching the ball, he is not providing the opportunity. Thus KCI.

I rest my case. I never said there was/is a halo but the case book example is clear. The receiver has to have a chance to complete the catch. Being leveled as he touches the ball is KCI.

What if the receiver bobbles it...does the defense have to wait for the outcome or can they hit him? I realize that if the hit is immediate, you could have KCI if the defender interfers with R's ability to move toward the kick. So, the rule book says touches and case book says unmolested opportunity. I guess giving the receiver a half count would be appropriate, but if he bobbles it and then gets hit I'm not calling it KCI.

If he is bobbling it, leave him alone...if it hits him in the chest and bounces away he is fair game. As long as there is a reasonable expectation that unmolested he would catch the ball, you have to give him the opportunity if he has signalled for the fair catch. If however he didn't signal for a fair catch, I would give K a little more latitude, but he still gets a reasonable chance to catch it.

Had this happen last night. Our consensus was that we bag the spot of first touching by R and that he is provided protection until he completes the catch, as long as it doesn't hit the ground. In our case he bobbled the ball 2 or 3 times and then was leveled, we threw a KCI (after a loose ball nailed one of our guys in the head and broke his glasses).

Did he signal fair catch or not?

In the interest of player safety, if a defender is close enough to clock an opponent in the split second between touching and catching, it is doubtful that the receiver had an adequate opportunity to catch the ball and was obviously in a vulnerable and dangerous posture. By the casebook and the spirit of the rule, you have to call this KCI.

The player who got hit did give a fair catch signal, but what if it was another R player?

This also has been discussed somewhat endlessly in our association meetings. To a man we agree that it depends entirely on whether K was able to see the signal or not. All K players cannot be held responsible for watching every R player in case one of them decides to give a fair catch signal. Can you imagine the mayhem that would ensue? If K didn't have the opportunity to see the fair catch signal given by other than the R player catching the ball, then he cannot be flagged for the contact. It is similar to A1 passing the ball a split second before he is hit by B1, who is in the air, and expecting a roughing call ... or B2 turning just before he is blocked and expecting a block in the back penalty.

According to the rule book, only a receiver that gives a valid fair catch signal is afforded protection. I have learned though that I need to give the receiver more time in order to have an "unmolested" opportunity to catch the ball.