Here's one we discussed locally within our chapter...it makes you think of a few rules. Probably not to much debate however but a good test queston:

K's punt from the K-45 is bouncing around at the R-15. At the R-5 yard line, K85 bats the ball back towards his own goal line to prevent it from going into the endzone. The ball hits R40, then K80 blocks R40 in the back at the R-10 to get to the loose ball.

R40 picks up the ball and runs to midfield where he fumbles. K31 recovers and runs it in for a touchdown. During K31's run, he turns around and trots backwards into the endzone, does a little dance, and spikes the ball.

wow lots of stuff happening here LOL...the first of which is first touching...at the R5 I say K85's "block" in the back is legal as they are attempting to get a loose ball... K31 will get a good chewing out on the sidelines I hope as he as committed and unsportsmanlike foul. Which will be assesed from the succeeding spot. So I have R ball 1st and 10 from the 20....would have been so much easier to just let it get into the endzone LOL...

OK... 1st, we have first touching by K at he the R-5. This is where it might get interesting...Did K85 bat the ball into K40 or did the ball just get touched by K40. We may have a flag for the BIB, depending on how the ball was touched by K40. The rest isn't really going to matter because R will obviously take the ball at the spot of first touching, the R-5. Add the 15 yard for the USC and it will be 1st and 10 from the R20.

Back to the BIB...Is my thinking right? If K85 batted the ball into K40, it doesn't give K80 the right to pummel a guy to get to the ball does it? If K40 purposely touches it, then I agree that the BIB would be legal as long as K80 was making an attemt to get to the ball. So if the BIB was ruled illegal, R would get the option of decling the BIB and taking the ball at the R20 as stated above or making K rekick from the K20 after enforcement of the BIB and the USC. Right?? Good one ljudge!

If the BIB is illegal, then that would be enforced and the USC would be enforced wouldn't it? I am of the mind however that it is a stretch to call the BIB illegal. If it is a legitimate attempt to get to the loose ball...Yes there is the question as to whether K80 can legally possess the ball, but there is no reason K80 can't legally touch the ball, so with that in mind I wouldn't call the BIB illegal. Especially considering the fact that K80 my have no idea how the ball was touched by R.

As per MJT's request, I'll let a few of you think about this a few days and I'll respond with the ruling I have.

cmatthews, I agree with you. Our chapter puts out doozie of tests and we frequenty make questions up like this in program books, discussions in meetings, etc. Why you may ask? Some of our cadets have criticized tests being way to difficult. When they're this difficult (and you get them right) then you get the stuff that typically happens (correctly) on the field. In other words, a double foul coupled with a USC would be "second nature" in front of 2,000 people which is what you want.

I agree
 

Ljudge,
I agree with you, these are the questions that keep you out of hot water, when it matters most....or they are supposed to anyway LOL

Wowsa. Since R did not foul in the play, R can always take the spot of "first touching" and take the ball at his own five. Since "first touching" is technically a foul, they could not accept the IBB with this. They could however enforce the USC. R ball at the R20.

Since the illegal block in the back occurs before the ball was recovered, it is a looseball play. Enforce 10 yards from the K45. Also enforce the dead ball USC on K31, 15 yards. So backup K 25 yards, and replay the down from the K20.

So R's options are as follows:

1) Let the play stand. If done, award K six points, and let them have the try from the 18 following the enforcement of the USC.

2) Take the first touching penalty. Decline the IBB, and enforce the USC. R ball at the R20.

3) Decline first touching, and accept the IBB. Enforce 10 yards from the PLS and 15 more from the succeeding spot. Replay down from the K 20.

[Edited by SouthGARef on Dec 1st, 2004 at 04:23 PM]

Good thinga bout this play is that coaches won't have any clue so if you do screw it up they won't say a damn thing! :D

SouthGARef,
You are correct that an IBB would be enforced from the previous spot in this case...however just a scematic thing, first touching is not technically a foul. 2-16-6 it is one of the game situations that produce results similar to penalties but which are not classified as fouls.

Interesting questions. I'll attempt to answer using NCAA. Since K illegally touches the ball at the R-5 a bean bag will be dropped. The ball hitting R40 is ignored as it is considered forced touching. The block in the back by K80 is illegal since they can't legally recover the ball. Another bean bag will be dropped at the spot where R40 picks up the ball to mark the end of the kick. After R40 fumbles K can then legally recover that ball. R now has some choices. Enforce both the block in the back and the unsportsmanlike at the previous spot and replay the down from the K-20, or they can decline the block in the back and elect to take the ball at the spot of the illegal touch followed by enforcement of the unsportsmanlike. R's ball 1st and 10 at the R-20. One could be technical and say that K31 committed multiple unsportsmanlike fouls and be DQ'd.

[Edited by JasonTX on Dec 1st, 2004 at 05:10 PM]

This is not a legal block. K may only block in the back if it’s to catch or recover a loose ball that he may legally touch or possess. So while the ball is loose it’s still a kick and K can’t legally touch or recover it until the kick ends.

...make a little love, get down tonight, get down tonight.

Canadian Ruling
 

There is no touchback in Canadian ball, so K would not try to prevent the ball from entering the endzone, but if that play did happen in the Great White North:

Flag comes out for No Yards (by K85) at the R-5. Flag for K80 blocking from the rear. Flag for K31 objectionable conduct.

Either the No Yards or the Blocking from the Rear will be applied: both are 15 yards. R will take the No Yards because that foul guarantees them the ball. Add 10 yards for OC, and it is R 1D/10 @ R-30.

My take is the BIB is illegal cuz in the definition of blocking it says A or B can legally "push, pull, or ward off an opponent when the ball is loose <b>if</b> he may legally touch or possess the ball." A BIB in my opinion does not meet this "legal block."
Therefore we have
1st touching by K at R's 5 BEANBAG DOWN
a live ball, loose ball BIB foul by K at R's 10, enforced from PS if accepted
forced touching by R40 is ignored
BEANBAG DOWN where ever R40 recovered ball as this is the EOK
BEANBAG at 50, spot of fumble
USC for going in backwards, USC for dance, USC for spike (I would probably call all of this one USC, but I think you could justify all 3 if you wanted to)

Results
Accept BIB and USC, rekick from K’s 20; if you called 3 USC’s rekick from K’s 5
Decline BIB and take ball at spot of 1st touching, enforce USC, R’s ball at R’s 20; if you called 3 USC’s then R’s ball at the 50.

Hope I got it all as I was in a hurry. Fun question!

I would not have a BIB as K was going for the loose ball.

I have the ball as R's ball 1st and 10 on the 20 after the USC as the others do.

And how would you say that K can't legally touch this ball? Are you going to flag K for touching this kick rolling around on the ground? Of course K can legally touch the ball rolling around on the ground during a kick. There is no illegal BIB on this play.

It is 1st touching in A, and illegal touching in NCAA for K to touch a scrimmgage kick beyond the NZ before it is touched by R. You do not flag it, but you had better have a beanbag down!

You are correct here MJT. The NF- NCAA definitions are a good example to use for understanding how this works. Even though we don't flag this violation as a foul that carries a penalty, it’s still technically illegal for K to touch or recover a scrimmage kick that’s beyond the NZ before it’s touched by R. K’s block in the back is illegal.

You can't apply the NCAA illegal touch to the Fed First touching. It isn't illegal in the federation, it is one of the situations where no foul is committed...yada yada I won't retype the whole sentence. I can see your point however James, but how is K who commits the BIB to know that it isn't a loose ball that he may legally touch or possess...with that in mind, I have no BIB, after it is touched or touches R you can't expect a player to know that it was batted by K to begin with. As a matter of fact if the first K player bats it and it goes out to the 15 where a second K player downs it, assuming no penalties it will be at the 15 so it there is the possibility that R benefits from K getting to the ball at the 15....I would never have a flag for the BIB

Official Answer
 

Looks like this stirred up some good discussion which is what I believe MJT wanted us to do.

A few of you had this right on. Our ruling had it spelled out as SouthGARef had in his #2 and #3. We didn't discuss #1 in this answer but I suppose that's certainly an option.

A couple of points:

1) First Touching isn't a foul, but rather a violation (which makes the act illegal). There can be more than 1 instance of 1st touching so the touching is illegal.

2) In point #1 the rules clearly say that a BIB is illegal as per 9.3.5b (for those of you who disagree b/c he "couldn't have seen it" still doesn't make the act legal). So you have to enforce the BIB...now whether you call it or not is another story.

3) I thought some of you would say the BIB would be legal because R40 did touch the ball before the BIB. But that was due to a batted ball. This year's rules tell you to ignore touching by R on a MUFF by K but doesn't say anything about a BAT by K. But common sense to us says that the a BAT would also apply to this rule. After all, why wouldn't it? I don't think the people making up the rules intended for K to get an advantage by purposely batting the ball into R and giving K a free shot at a BIB to get to the loose ball. Just our interpretation of course.

All for now. I'll put up another post next Thursday which is my day. I will still chime in on the discussion if people have other stuff to say but since there was an overwhelming response I wanted to get the ruling I had out there. Perhaps some of you may still dispute this but that's what makes it fun.

Thanks a bunch,
Ljudge

Need NCAA response
 

Oh, by the way my answer was NFHS only. I'm still a NCAA "wanna bee" and have a year or so before they'll even consider an application. So one of you college gurus need to answer for the NCAA bunch.

You don't throw a flag for ill touching in NCAA either. It is the same is in NF, just a different name.

If the BIB occured at a time when B could legally contact the ball, it would not be a foul, supported by casebook 9.3.5a. Even when either team can legally push, pull, or ward off an opponent to get to a loose ball, they can still have a foul for PF or ill use of hands 2-3-5 and 2-3-4.

Ok I guess I will go with not calling the BIB unless it is pretty violent, but I do disagree that first touching is a violation or a penalty, and I am not convinced that it is illegal. It is specifically listed as having results similar to a penalty, but not a foul. There is no such thing as a violation in football. If it were truly a violation or penalty, batting the ball at the 5 yard line to keep it from going into the endzone would result in some sort of enforcement other than giving R the ball at the 5 yard line. If R were in a position to block K1 would we penalize K for pushing R out of the way to get to the kick to down it at the 5? Assuming that they pushed R in the back to get there? I wouldn't because they can legally touch that ball just as they can legally touch the ball after it has been batted....I also believe that the note in rule 2-3-5 allowing for the defense to tackle a player pretending to be a runner, and reasonable allowance for the defense not knowing, can be applied here in the fact that the second K player may not be aware that the ball was batted into R, with that in mind I still say that the BIB is not illegal by itself, if it is a personal foul that is different as is noted in the note above LOL...anyway this has been a very good discussion, lots of rules digging while I should be reading basketball rules....

[Edited by cmathews on Dec 2nd, 2004 at 03:21 PM]

cmatthews, I got that term "violation" from an article I read in Referee. I guess you could argue they're not always right, but you would be incorrect in saying that First Touching is a legal act. That's why it has a consequence that's consistent with penalties and why it's sometimes referred to (although an unofficial term) as a violation and not a penalty.

Has anyone else ever heard of FT being referred to as a violation?

Either way you look at it, if FT were a legal act then why doesn't the ball simply become dead and belong to R when K finally possesses the ball.

Consider this play. K kicks from K50. K touches the ball at R's 30 and finally recovers the ball at R20. If FT were a legal act, then HOW could you justify giving R the ball at the 30 (the spot of first touching)? You couldn't! If so, then I'd challenge with "what rule would support this?"

See my point?

<i>Originally posted by cmathews [/i]
Ok I guess I will go with not calling the BIB unless it is pretty violent, but I do disagree that first touching is a violation or a penalty, and I am not convinced that it is illegal. <b>When the exact same thing happens in NCAA, it is called "illegal touching". I think this shows it is illegal, just that the enforcement is different, and a beanbag is dropped, not a flag.</b> It is specifically listed as having results similar to a penalty, but not a foul. There is no such thing as a violation in football. If it were truly a violation or penalty, batting the ball at the 5 yard line to keep it from going into the endzone would result in some sort of enforcement other than giving R the ball at the 5 yard line. <b>That "is" the enforcement, R can take the ball at that spot.</b> If R were in a position to block K1 would we penalize K for pushing R out of the way to get to the kick to down it at the 5? Assuming that they pushed R in the back to get there? I wouldn't because they can legally touch that ball just as they can legally touch the ball after it has been batted.... <b>This was a forced touching, which is ignored-this was in the early NF publication. </B> I also believe that the note in rule 2-3-5 allowing for the defense to tackle a player pretending to be a runner, and reasonable allowance for the defense not knowing, can be applied here in the fact that the second K player may not be aware that the ball was batted into R, <b>I see your point here, but it is their responsibility to know if there was a forced touching, the same way it is their responsibility to know a fair catch was called for even if they were being blocked as they came downfield.</B> with that in mind I still say that the BIB is not illegal by itself, if it is a personal foul that is different as is noted in the note above LOL...anyway this has been a very good discussion, lots of rules digging while I should be reading basketball rules.... <b>It has been a great discussion and got us in the books!</b>


<b>See my responses in BOLD above.</b>

MJT there are lots of differences in the NCAA rules and Federation rules, that is why you can't apply them to each other...one for example is this...if a player is blocked legally into the punter, in Fed rules roughing is or running into is waived, in NCAA it is still penalized, so I don't feel you can use them interchangeably.

Ljudge, the weakest part of my argument is for sure whether it is "legal" or not and I agree your argument is the strongest....however the note that I cited above concerning (reasonable allowance for the defense knowing whether or not a player is a ball carrier etc) I think applies here to the second K player. It is reasonable for them to think that this is a live ball, and therefore they are reasonable in thinking they can legally touch and possess it, and therefore they can "legally" Block in the back...and in either case I would hesitate to call it unless it was violent...and the chances of it being violent are pretty slim if the K player is actually trying to get to the ball, as opposed to just taking the opportunity to knock someone's head off...

ljudge I have enjoyed this thread and the discussion all day. I have several points to ponder.

NFHS 2-11-1 During a free kick it is first touching if the ball is touched in the field of play by a kicker before it crosses R’s free-kick line and before it is touched there by any R player.

NFHS 2-11-2 During a scrimmage kick it is first touching if the ball is touched by any kicker in the field of play and beyond the expanded neutral zone before it is touched there by R and before the ball has come to rest.

NFHS 2-16-1 A foul is a rule infraction for which a penalty is prescribed.

NHFS 6-1-6 When any kicker touches a scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone to R’s goal line before it is touched beyond the neutral zone by R and before the ball has come to rest it is referred to as “first touching of the kick.” And the place is the “spot of first touching.” If any kicker touches a scrimmage kick in this manner, R may take the ball at the spot of first touching, or any spot if there is more than one spot of first touching, or they may choose to have the ball put in play as determined by the action which follows first touching.

NFHS 6-3-5 If any kicker touches a free kick before it crosses R’s free kick line and before it is touched there by any R player it is referred to as “first touching of the kick.” R may take the ball at the spot of first touching. Or any spot if there is more than one spot of first touching, or they may choose to have the ball put in play as determined by the action which follows first touching.

NCAA 2-9-1 A foul is a rule infraction for which a penalty is prescribed. A violation is a rule infraction for which no penalty is prescribed and does not offset the penalty for a foul.

NCAA 6-1-3 A team A player may touch a free-kicked ball:
a. After it touches a team B player
b. After it breaks the plane of and remains beyond team B’s restraining line
c. After it touches any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond team B’s restraining line.
Thereafter all players of team A become eligible to touch, recover or catch the kick. Illegal touching of free kick is a violation that, when the ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team the privilege if tacking the ball at the spot of the violation.

NCAA 6-3-2 No inbounds player of the kicking team shall touch a scrimmage kick that has crossed the neutral zone before it touches an opponent. Such illegal touching is a violation that, when the ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team the privilege if taking the ball at the spot of the violation.

First touching is a legal act because the rules do not prohibit it. The rules support it. The rules also do not prescribe a penalty for first touching. No penalty equals no illegal act. The rules do how ever tell you what to do if you have first touching. This prevents K from putting R at a disadvantage. In your play without the first touching (illegal touching) rules K would be able to touch the scrimmage kick at R’s 30 and then down it at R’s 20 forcing R to put the ball in play at the 20, instead of the 30.
Dale Smith

Dale, I may just be overwelmed by the bulk of your post, but I am correct that you are saying FT is legal, but there are ramifications? If so, they need to clarify in the rulebook or casebook to give more support to this play situation. I think the BIB should be enforced, but that is if you agree that B cannot legally touch the ball yet. This is where the problem is as I see it.

[Dale, I may just be overwelmed by the bulk of your post, but I am correct that you are saying FT is legal, but there are ramifications? If so, they need to clarify in the rulebook or casebook to give more support to this play situation. I think the BIB should be enforced, but that is if you agree that B cannot legally touch the ball yet. This is where the problem is as I see it. [/B][/QUOTE]

MJT touching of a scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone by K is legal. The ramification of first touching is, if R does not foul, no matter what happens during the play after first touching the ball will belong to R at the spot of first touching. If you break down ljudge’s play this is what you have.

:K's punt from the K-45 is bouncing around at the R-15. At the R-5 yard line, K85 bats the ball back towards his own goal line to prevent it from going into the endzone."
The bat is legal and is also first touching. Beanbag at the spot.

"The ball hits R40"
Ignore the touching by R40 because it is the result of the bat.

"K80 blocks R40 in the back at the R-10 to get to the loose ball."
If B40 is in the vicinity of the ball this block is legal as K80 can legally touch the ball.

"R40 picks up the ball and runs to midfield where he fumbles. K31 recovers and runs it in for a touchdown."
Ball is dead as the result of the touchdown. How ever because of first touching by K, the ball is returned to the spot of first touching and awarded to R by rule.

"During K31's run, he turns around and trots backwards into the endzone, does a little dance, and spikes the ball."
The dead ball USC foul by K31 is enforced against K at the spot of first touching. Ljudge did not say if K80 touched the ball, I will assume he did not. The ball will be put in play by R at R’s 20 yard line.

Dale Smith

Dale, why does it say in 2-3-4c then that "the offensive player may also use his hands to push, pull, or ward off an opponent <b>if he can legally touch</b> the ball. In 2-3-5, when talking in the same way about the defense, the words "if he can legally touch it," are not used. I think it is different because their are times when the offense/K cannot legally touch the ball, and this is one of those times.

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.

what makes it illegal??
 

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]

Re: what makes it illegal??
 

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.

2-16-6
 

it is the note in 2-16-6

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.)

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...

Re: 2-16-6
 

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

woo hooooo
 

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

Re: woo hooooo
 

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!

Re: Re: woo hooooo
 

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 ;)

Re: Re: Re: woo hooooo
 

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

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.

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 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.

Kentref,
the player safety issue can be addressed with personal foul, if it is deemed to be a "shot" at the R player...I obviously am of the opinion that if it is not specifically illegal, then it is legal to touch the ball, if it is legal, then the BIB is legal as long as it isn't a personal foul...you also answer part of the question, you mention that K may have a right to touch the ball.....if they do then the BIB is legal....

Good point. I didn't think about the personal foul application. Thanks for bringing that up.

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

[/B][/QUOTE]

REPLY: I'll stay on the 'light' side, thank you very much. I still believe this block in the back is a foul because K is legally not able to touch or possess the ball at the time of the foul.

Bob,
Where does it say it is illegal to touch the kick? As a matter of fact all you will find in the rule book is a whole lot of ways that K can legally touch the kick. They cannot posses it until R touches it without it being batted into them, but they can touch it all they want.

I agree that the NCAA specifically calls it illegal touching, but the Fed just calls it first touching, and specifically makes note that this is NOT a foul, but has ramifications similar to a penalty. I repeat it is NOT a foul if it is not a foul then it is legal isn't it??

No. K can’t legally touch this ball. If they do then we'll call it "first touching" and take it from there. NF 9-3-5b uses the words "Using hands and arms to contact an opponent above the waist in warding off a blocker, or when attempting to reach a runner, or catch or recover a loose ball which he may legally touch or possess".
See, it says “legally” touch or possess“. If he can legally touch this ball it just goes to reason he can also illegally touch it.

James while I do respect your argument, where in the book does it say that it is a foul or illegal? I have on numerous occasions above stated the rules citation in the book that explicitly says it is NOT a foul....there is a section even on illegal touching, and that refers to a forward pass...there is nothing on illegal touching of a kick, and if it isn't illegal it must be legal.

I'm going to take a chance here. Maybe someone can come up with an exception.

It is always legal for any player to touch a grounded ball.

Below are examples of plays where players touch the ball and the foul associated with the play.

It is illegal touching for an offensive lineman to be the first to touch a forward pass behind the neutral zone. It is kick catch interference for K to catch or touch a free-kick in the air or for K to catch or touch a scrimmage kick with an R player in the area.

It is illegal participation for an A or K player to come from OOB on their own. It doesn't matter if they touch the ball or not.

A planned loose-ball play at the snap uses S19 for planned loose-ball infraction.

So it is legal for K to touch a grounded scrimmage kick. If there is a foul there is a flag and a penalty. There is a list of legal plays where there are results similar to penalty enforcements under 2-16-6. If these weren't similar to fouls and not fouls then they would be listed under a different area.

Warrenkicker, I agree with you, welcome to the Dark side, or light side which ever side you happen to view as dark or light LOL this has been a fun discussion LOL....

Guys - it says that this is not a foul if it is done when K can legally POSSESS OR TOUCH the ball. If you are ruling that illegal/first touching is LEGAL, then at what time during live ball play can a defensive (or K team)player NOT legally touch the ball? Seems to me that it is EXACTLY this scenario that the rule is referring to, and the BIB is illegal because K cannot legally touch the ball.

Mcrowder, could you please point to a rule that says first touching is illegal? Or can you point to a place that refers to illegal/first touching. There is a post above that very clearly points out when touching a ball is illegal, anyone can touch a grounded kick. Also the reference in the rules cited above that says that first touching is NOT a foul. There have been several rules cited on our side of the fence, it is you guys turn to cite rules in your favor LOL :)

Cmathews we have another on our side.
Mcrowder a team K player is more or less a team A player. They are the team that put the ball in play. The play in question is a scrimmage kick. K is allowed to legally touch the ball beyond the expanded neutral zone. As far as the BIB goes, if the R player being blocked is near the ball and the team K player has a chance to touch the ball then the team R player is fair game provided the block is not a personal foul. Now if the team B player is a good distance from the ball and the team K player has no chance to touch the ball then we have a BIB.
Dale Smith

EXACTLY !!! Welcome to the light !


BTW... I give up , trying to convince others that is :)

rules citation
 

James,
LOL I like that this discussion has stayed so good natured the whole time...now can you please point to a rule that says that first touching is either illegal or a foul? and if so please let me in on the penalty enforcement... :)

Oh, I have been on the dark side since the start of page 2. I joined you way back then but have just been hiding in the shadows.

Well, I'm NCAA - so the fact that the rule is called ILLEGAL TOUCHING, implies to me that the touching is illegal... but maybe that's just me. :) The idea behind the rule is the same.

You didn't answer my question though.

The rule specifically says "legally allowed to touch or possess". If the rule was meant to be ruled on in the manner in which you are ruling, why wouldn't they include the disclaimer at all.... the "legally allowed to touch or possess" part is useless if players are ALWAYS allowed to touch the ball, and if the way you are ruling is correct, then they are ALWAYS allowed to legally touch the ball (kick in flight being about the only exception I can think of, and if this was the only time at which BIB is illegal by K, surely the rulewriters would have framed it more specifically). It seems to me that "legally allowed to touch" is SPECIFICALLY aimed at times when K is not legally allowed to touch the ball without ramifications - i.e. specifically THIS case.

REPLY: I agree that this has been a lively and professional discussion where an honest disagreement exists.

There is no specific reference in the 2004 Federation rule book or case book that explicitly says that 'first touching' is <i>illegal</i>. However, 2-16-6 makes note of first touching as one of the "...Game situations which produce results somewhat similar to penalties, but which are not classed as fouls." Does that mean they're not <u>illegal</u> just because they're not called "fouls?" Personally, I don't think so.

Interestingly, the NCAA rule book uses a slightly different wording. They say that a player on the kicking team may <i>"...During a scrimmage kick play or a free kick play, <b>when he is eligible to touch the ball</b>, legally use his hand(s) and/or arm(s) to push an opponent in an attempt to reach a loose ball."</i>

In my opinion, this is a much clearer way of stating it, and I believe that the intention of both rule codes is the same.