Expanded Neutral Zone on Punt - Play happened tonight

[CruiseMan]

Ok..boy I hope I got this right, because I convinced my crewmates that I was positive. I even credited Play-of-the-day which gave a similar scenario earlier this week.

This happened tonight in our JV game.

4th and 6 from K's 24. K is lined up to punt. K66 is the center. I am the umpire. Two defensive lineman are lined up in the gaps on either side of the center. The ball is snapped and the lineman shoot the gaps, while the center does the best he can. There is no roughing the snapper.

R's right guard picks up his block and they are engaged in the expanded neutral zone. The left guard misses his block and the defender is moving towards the kicker.

The kicker manages a low lined punt that hits our center K66 in the breadbasket which he manages to catch. I take a quick glance at the stick and see he caught the ball one yard beyond the line of scrimmage. My blockers from K and R are still engaged parallel to K66. I've declared that K has legally recovered the ball in the expanded neutral zone. I turn back to K66, wide eyed, supressing the urge to yell RUN. He looks at me, with the ball out at which time a player from R runs up and lightly engages K66 on the shoulders to prevent forward progress. I blow the play dead and spot the ball on K's 25 and signal first down for R.

Four referees immediately converge and want to know why I didn't call Kick Catching Interference. I told them that I checked where K caught the ball and he was in the expanded neutral zone. Also defending my case was that there was no one from R in position to play the low kick.

I wish the kid had ran. I'd have loved it if he'd made the first down. He was the 6'4" 200 pound kid on the JV you alwasy see too. Had he a started runnin... he might not have stopped.

So...anyone still up..west coasters out there. Did I get it right?

[MJT]

You were correct in one area, but incorrect in another I believe. Casebook 6.2.6 says "Low scrimmage kicks may touch, or be touched by by players or K or R, and such touching is ignored if the kick has not been beyond the "expanded" NZ. Since this was in the expanded NZ the catch by K is fine.

Now 6-3-3 says K may catch or recover, and "advance" if it is in or beyond the "NZ". Since it is in the "expanded NZ," it should have been blown dead when he recovered it.

[keystoneref]

MJT I believe that 6-3-3 says K may catch or recover a kick and advance if the kick is caught or recovered in or BEHIND the neutral zone. I don't have my books with me but K MAY NOT ADVANCE a kick that K recovers BEYOND the neutral zone.

[MJT]

Originally posted by keystoneref
MJT I believe that 6-3-3 says K may catch or recover a kick and advance if the kick is caught or recovered in or BEHIND the neutral zone. I don't have my books with me but K MAY NOT ADVANCE a kick that K recovers BEYOND the neutral zone.

I copied that wrong, I meant "behind" not beyond. That is why it should have been blown dead. What I wrote initially makes no sense, just typed wrong. Should have proofed that one better.

[CruiseMan]

Originally posted by MJT

I copied that wrong, I meant "behind" not beyond. That is why it should have been blown dead. What I wrote initially makes no sense, just typed wrong. Should have proofed that one better.

I understand what you're saying here, but I have to disagree with the separation of the "neutral zone" and the "expanded neutral zone". They are one in the same. 2-27-2 says "The neutral zone may be expanded following the snap up to a mazimum of 2 yards behind the defensive line of scrimmage, in the field of play during any scrimmage down." Thus my center was in the neutral zone when he posessed the ball.

This has been a fun one for me. We talked about it for a good 15-20 minutes during our pre-game today

[keystoneref]

Cruise Man I have to respectfully disagree. The neutral zone and the expanded neutral zone are not one and the same. The rules book clearly states instances if you are talking about the neutral zone or the expanded neutral zone. I feel it is clear that there is a distinction. 6-2-3 and 6-2-4 both talk about what is legal beyond and behind the neutral zone and expanded neutral zone. 6-2-5 states if any kicker touches a scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone before it is touched beyond the neutral zone by R it is called the spot of first touching. If these were the same thing then the rule book would not differentiate between them.

My last point I will make is this 7-5-1. It is a legal forward pass, if during a scrimmage down and before team possession has changed, a player of A throws the ball with both feet of the passer in or behind the neutral zone when the ball is released. If the neutral zone and the expanded neutral zone were one and the same then the passer would be able to release a pass up to two yards beyond the neutral zone and this would be a legal play. I think we both know if a passer released a pass 2 yards beyond the neutral zone we would have a penalty for an illegal forward pass. The neutral zone and the expanded neutral zone are not the same. I hope this helps.

[MJT]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by CruiseMan

Originally posted by MJT

I copied that wrong, I meant "behind" not beyond. That is why it should have been blown dead. What I wrote initially makes no sense, just typed wrong. Should have proofed that one better.

I understand what you're saying here, but I have to disagree with the separation of the "neutral zone" and the "expanded neutral zone". They are one in the same. 2-27-2 says "The neutral zone may be expanded following the snap up to a mazimum of 2 yards behind the defensive line of scrimmage, in the field of play during any scrimmage down." Thus my center was in the neutral zone when he posessed the ball.

This has been a fun one for me. We talked about it for a good 15-20 minutes during our pre-game today [/QUOTE

They are NOT one and the same, otherwise why would it say "beyond the NZ or expanded NZ in 6-2-4?? They mention "both" of them in the same rule, which indicates they are not "one and the same."
It says in 6-2-4 "K can recover a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the NZ or ENZ, provided it has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the NZ at the time of the touching." It continues to say "Such catch or recovery by K beyond the NZ causes the ball to become dead." So if K recovers in or behind the NZ, they can advance, but if beyond they cannot.
Also in 6-2-5 it says "When any kicker touches a scrimmage kick beyond the ENZ to R's goal line before touched beyond the NZ by R, it is first touching." Again refering to both the NZ, and ENZ in the same rule indicating they are different.
Also if they were one and the same then it would not be an illegal forward pass unless the QB passed the ball beyond the ENZ, cuz it and the NZ are one and the same. It would not be an illegal kick unless they kicked it in or behind the ENZ, and it specifically says NZ.
The reason the NZ is expanded it for offensive blocking reasons and touching of low scrimmage kicks. Other than that, the NZ is the line for many of our rules.
Now the play you had was a crazy one, with guys all over the place, the ball caught a split second after a low punt, and mass chaos everywhere. I don't think anyone knew the difference, and am not saying I would have got it right at that moment in time either. I was just stating the differences between the NZ and ENZ.