Q#1: Kicking game question

[Bob M.]

REPLY: In my opinion, the BIB originally described is technically a foul. K cannot 'legally' touch or possess the loose ball because it would be first touching/illegal touching. So he's restricted and not afforded the 'freedoms' outlined in 9-3-5b or NCAA 9-3-3c Exception 3.

[cmathews]

Guys, I know Dale and I are in the minority here LOL..But where does it say that it is illegal or a foul for K to touch the kick? It is legal for K to bat a kick into the field play to keep it from going into the endzone. If that is the case then it is legal for K to touch the kick a second time, as a matter of fact R would benefit from this "second" "first" touching....

The rule book explicitly says that first touching is NOT a foul, the results are similar to a penalty, but it is NOT a foul. If does not say it is illegal or a foul, then it must be legal. If it is legal to touch it, then it is legal for K to block in the back to get to it...

Dale has given me renewed energy in this argument...LOL you just about had me beat down until Dale stepped in LOL......

[Edited by cmathews on Dec 3rd, 2004 at 05:35 PM]

[MJT]

Originally posted by cmathews
Guys, I know Dave and I are in the minority here LOL..But where does it say that it is illegal or a foul for K to touch the kick? It is legal for K to bat a kick into the field play to keep it from going into the endzone. If that is the case then it is legal for K to touch the kick a second time, as a matter of fact R would benefit from this "second" "first" touching....

The rule book explicitly says that first touching is NOT a foul, the results are similar to a penalty, but it is NOT a foul. If does not say it is illegal or a foul, then it must be legal. If it is legal to touch it, then it is legal for K to block in the back to get to it...

Dave has given me renewed energy in this argument...LOL you just about had me beat down until Dave stepped in LOL......

Where in the rule or case book are you finding that it "explicitly says that first touching is NOT a foul, the results are similar to a penalty, but it is NOT a foul."(your words)
I do not find that in the definition or in rule 6-2. I'm pretty sure you know where it says that "explicitly" or you would not have been so stron in your words.

[cmathews]

it is the note in 2-16-6

[Dale Smith]

Gentlemen
Don’t hang your hat on one rule, a part of a rule or limit yourself to the rulebook or casebook. Remember the NFHS also has a handbook that goes hand in hand with the rulebook. The play presented is covered by several rules and you need to apply all of them to rule on this play properly. If you need a expanded explanation of first touching and its ramifications see page 51 of the 2003 and 2004 handbook.
As far as first touching not being a foul, if it is not listed in the penalty summary it is not a foul. Also 2-16-6, missed that in my first post.
Cmathews you have fought a well fought fight. I salute you sir. lol
Dale Smith (aka Dave.)

[cmathews]

Dale,
I have corrected my faux paux and appoligize profusely LOL...I had too much coffee today, and renamed you inadvertantly...thank you for your support, and thanks for your diligent research...

[MJT]

Originally posted by cmathews
it is the note in 2-16-6

Ok, I see that, and now I am waivering in my opinion.

[cmathews]

Dale,
It appears we have almost converted another one from the dark side here...LOL

[MJT]

Originally posted by cmathews
Dale,
It appears we have almost converted another one from the dark side here...LOL

Possible so! I would like to hear from Bob M and some of the others who were with me for so long to see if your last few responses changed there minds as well. GREAT DEBATE!

[James Neil]

Originally posted by MJT

Possible so! I would like to hear from Bob M and some of the others who were with me for so long to see if your last few responses changed there minds as well. GREAT DEBATE!

LOL Sorry guys but I’m going to hang with Bob M here and still say the touching is illegal. This may be weak for an argument but here I go anyway. Is running with the ball out of bounds legal? No .So if it’s not legal it must be illegal even though it’s not listed as a foul. What it is a violation of the rules and we kill the play as a consequence. Does that help? LOL I didn't think so

[Dale Smith]

Sorry guys but I’m going to hang with Bob M here and still say the touching is illegal. This may be weak for an argument but here I go anyway. Is running with the ball out of bounds legal? No .So if it’s not legal it must be illegal even though it’s not listed as a foul. What it is a violation of the rules and we kill the play as a consequence. Does that help? LOL I didn't think so [/B]

James you are correct that a player running the ball out of bounds is a violation that causes the ball to become dead at the spot that it crossed the sideline. How ever with one exception, kicking the ball out of bounds on a free kick, it is not illegal to cause the ball to be out the playing area.
Dale Smith

[kentref]

I just got my first look at the question and the subsequent posts.

The block in the back is a foul in this situation.
I say this because the new ruling this year that touching by R is ignored when it is caused by K means that R still has not touched the ball when the BIB occurs.
I think folks are getting hung up too much with the term "legal." Think about it this way. If there is a situation where both R and K players can possess and retain the ball, then players from both R and K can pull, push, etc. to get to the ball. This situation does not exist in the play example because until R touches the ball, K cannot retain it after getting possession.
IMO that is why the BIB in this play is a foul.

Also, one of the posts indicated that you could potentially call more than one unsportsmanlike flag on the K player that scored. More than one USC gets that guy tossed, right??

Thanks to all for a good, thought-provoking question and a lot of really good responses!

[MJT]

Originally posted by kentref
I just got my first look at the question and the subsequent posts.

The block in the back is a foul in this situation.
I say this because the new ruling this year that touching by R is ignored when it is caused by K means that R still has not touched the ball when the BIB occurs.
I think folks are getting hung up too much with the term "legal." Think about it this way. If there is a situation where both R and K players can possess and retain the ball, then players from both R and K can pull, push, etc. to get to the ball. This situation does not exist in the play example because until R touches the ball, K cannot retain it after getting possession.
IMO that is why the BIB in this play is a foul.

Also, one of the posts indicated that you could potentially call more than one unsportsmanlike flag on the K player that scored. More than one USC gets that guy tossed, right??

Thanks to all for a good, thought-provoking question and a lot of really good responses!

Good point on "If there is a situation where both R and K players can possess and retain the ball, then players from both R and K can pull, push, etc. to get to the ball." The only problem is in 2-3-4 and 2-3-5 it uses the word "legally" when discussing being able to puch, pull, etc...
I am now defending the side I was once offending.

[Dale Smith]

Thanks to all for a good, thought-provoking question and a lot of really good responses!
[/B]

I am now defending the side I was once offending. [/B][/QUOTE]


MJT welcome to the dark side. lol
Kentref don’t forget that 9-3-5b says catch or recover a loose ball, which he may legally touch or possess. K is legally allowed to touch a kicked ball beyond the expanded neutral zone. The rules do not say that K must retain possession of the ball when the play is over.
Dale Smith

[kentref]

Kentref don’t forget that 9-3-5b says catch or recover a loose ball, which he may legally touch or possess. K is legally allowed to touch a kicked ball beyond the expanded neutral zone. The rules do not say that K must retain possession of the ball when the play is over.
Dale Smith

[/B][/QUOTE]

You are correct on the rule language. My point, which I probably could have expressed better in the first place, is that on this play, because K first touched the ball, unless R fouls, R is going to have the option to take the ball at the spot of first touching (or any other spot of "first touching"). Therefore, there is no advantage gained by K making a block in the back or some other forced effort to get to the ball. This, in my opinion, is simply a situation where, (if you don't deem the BIB a foul), K is getting a "free shot" at an R player.
Having said all that, it appears that the NFHS needs to look at the language in 9-3-5b and further clarify the "legality" of BIB, etc. after the ball is "first touched." It's a safety thing for me. K may have a "right" to touch the ball, but after it has been "first touched" once, the other "first touching" spots are really not in K's best interest unless they are behind the first spot of "first touching," (to keep the ball from going into the end zone for example. For example, if a second spot of first touching is 10 yards further upfield, then K has just given R an extra 10 yards. Therefore, why does K need to make such an effort to get to the ball?
You can argue either side here and technically be right, but I'd still prefer to err on the side of player safety.