NF Rule Question

[jwaz]

Situation: K kicks a free kick from their own 40 yard line. R is standing at his 10 and muffs ball and falls down. The ball is on the 2 yard line and R realizes that K might get to the ball before he can gain possesion so he kicks ball through his own end zone. Am I reading the rule correctly that there is no new force on a free kick? So this is a touchback and R gets the ball on the 20?
Thanks

[Bill D]

The result of the play is indeed a touchback. The kick has not ended and thus when it breaks the plane of the goal line it is a touchback. However, R is guilty of an illegal kick. The penalty, if accepted, is administered from the previous spot and K can rekick after administration of the fifteen yard penalty.

[MJT]

Correct. It seams wrong but 2-13-4 says force is not a factor "on kicks going into R's endzone, since these kicks are always a TB regaurdles of who supplied the force.

You will however have illegal kicking which is a foul by the offense, behind the basic spot (the 20 yardline cuz of TB) and it will be R's ball at the 1 yard line after half the distance.

[Bill D]

MJT:

The foul occured during the free kick which is a loose ball play, previous spot administration.

[MJT]

The basic spot "when the final result is a touchback" is the succeeding spot. See 10-5d

[RazorRef]

10-4-5d

[MJT]

ya, that's what I meant.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I have to agree with Bill D that since this was a free kick, this is a foul during a loose ball play, and the basic spot is the previous spot. NF 10-4-5d is there to cover only running plays that result in a TB. Consider this play: B intercepts A's pass in B's end zone. He tries to run it out, but is tackled in the endzone. During his run, B22 holds on B's 6. Up until 1996 when NF 10-4-5d was added, the basic spot was the end of the run. Since it was behind the spot of the foul and in B's endzone, enforcement would result in a safety. 10-4-5d was added to correct that inequity. Now, the result after enforcement will be B's ball 1-10 @ B's 3. NF 10-4-5d was never intended to address loose ball plays that resulted in a TB--only running plays where the end of the run was in the endzone and resulted in a TB.

[Bill D]

Thanks, Bob M. I was going to dig through my old books when I got home. I distinctly remember that change. I recall a similar inequity from the old rule. If B intercepted and was tackled by the face mask(live ball), the fifteen yard penalty was administerd from the goal line, if accepted. However, if there was a dead ball foul after B was down in the end zone, it was administered from the succeeding spot, the 20 yard line. I think "loose ball" administration is so ingrained in us "old timers" that I never contemplated that someone could read 10-4-5d in that way. MJT's interpretation would have allowed a foul by R during a punt that went into the endzone to be administered from the twenty or spot of the foul, prior to PSK coming in last year.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: I have to agree with Bill D that since this was a free kick, this is a foul during a loose ball play, and the basic spot is the previous spot. NF 10-4-5d is there to cover only running plays that result in a TB. Consider this play: B intercepts A's pass in B's end zone. He tries to run it out, but is tackled in the endzone. During his run, B22 holds on B's 6. Up until 1996 when NF 10-4-5d was added, the basic spot was the end of the run. Since it was behind the spot of the foul and in B's endzone, enforcement would result in a safety. 10-4-5d was added to correct that inequity. Now, the result after enforcement will be B's ball 1-10 @ B's 3. NF 10-4-5d was never intended to address loose ball plays that resulted in a TB--only running plays where the end of the run was in the endzone and resulted in a TB.

Bob and Bill, I think as Bill put it, your "old timers" stuff is to engrained because it is not a loose ball penalty. If you enforce it that way, you are wrong.

10-4-5d does not have a "clause" that says it is only on running plays where the end of the run resulted in a TB. It says the basic spot is the succeeding spot "when the final result is a TB." Not only if it is a TB as a result of a running play.

[Bill D]

Case book, page 62, 8.5.3, situation B.

[MJT]

I admit when I am wrong, and am glad you proved it to me so I would not administer this incorrectly. It is odd that the rulebook says one thing, and the casebook another. How are we supposed to know a difference such as this, which does not show an exception. Any chance it is an error? I am taking your proof, but will try to pursue this further. Thanks guys!

[Bill D]

MJT:
You ask "how are we supposed to know a difference such as this which does not show up as an exception"?

My first answer is that it helps to have an understanding of how certain rules changes came about. As Bob M. explained, the rule changing the basic spot from the goal line to the succeeding spot for plays resulting in touchbacks came about in 1996 to avoid safeties when B fouled in the field of play after an interception in the end zone.

Don't be too quick to dismiss the old timers. Contrary to your view, this is not one of the times that "our oldtimers" stuff is too ingrained. Of course, my umpire has to remind me at least once a season that holding is ten yards and not fifteen but that's another story.

When you relied on 10-4-5d in this case, you were ingoring 5-2-4 which is clear that if K accepts the foul for illegal kick there will be another free kick. If they decline the penalty, it will be a touchback.

I don't know how "new" an official you are as opposed to an "old timer" but I applaud your diligence and willingness to get in the book. Keep it up!!

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by MJT
I admit when I am wrong, and am glad you proved it to me so I would not administer this incorrectly. It is odd that the rulebook says one thing, and the casebook another. How are we supposed to know a difference such as this, which does not show an exception. Any chance it is an error? I am taking your proof, but will try to pursue this further. Thanks guys!

REPLY: Monte...if you had a dollar for every place where there was a gap or unintended interp in the Rule Book or where the Case Book and Rule Book were in conflict, you could retire...comfortably...on a Caribbean island...make that your own Caribbean island...with a private jet...etc.