#20. A receiver who has given a valid or invalid fair may not block an opponent during the down.

I answered False based on rule 9-3-3. "A receiver who has given a valid or invalid fair-catch signal shall not block an opponent until the kick has ended."

The moderator at the test site told me the answer key listed the answer as True. Is this a NF mistake?

You got it correct, word for word.

Well since there was some type of fair catch signal, saying during the down is really correct because when the ball is caught, recovered or downed, etc then the down is over so really the answer is true.

[Edited by cowbyfan1 on Aug 3rd, 2005 at 07:31 AM]

alabamabluezebra:

What may be tripping you up is that the test says "during the down" and that the rule says "until the kick has ended". Seems like a goofy way to write a test, but think about it this way, the kick and the down end at the same time if there has been a signal. If the kick goes out of bounds, is a touchback, or lays on the field with no one fielding it, the down ends and therefore the kick does, too. If A or B catch or recover it, the ball is dead, the kick ends and so does the down.

Like I said, I think this is a poor way to write a test question.

I was thinking about this earlier (not in relation to this question) and this came to me.

K1's punt is high and short. R2 gives a valid signal. Ball lands beyond the NZ and then bounces behind it (I don't think the ball going beyond the NZ matters). K3 picks the ball up and begins to advance. Am I correct that in this case, the down would not end, but R2 would be able to block? Or, am I missing something obvious?

Let me elaborate on why I think this is a poorly written question. If I am writing a test designed to trip up people, I write it the way this question is.

If I really want to mess with people and have them arguing about what the meaning of "is" is, then I get Congress or the NCAA rules committee to write the test.

But if I want to write a basic test that tests and reinforces basic rules knowledge, I write it in a more straightforward manner, giving all of the necessary info within the question. Seems to me that a Part I test in anything should be straightforward, get you back into the flow of thinking about the sport, and just make sure that you have or have retained basic knowledge of the rules, especially the new changes. Ideally, such a test will take an average official about 15-30 seconds per question to answer. A little bit longer on the ones that they need to look up.

I haven't seen the entire test, so perhaps overall they did a good job. But I don't like this particular question. Thinking that the signaler can not block during the rest of the down, may indeed be easier than thinking that he can not block until the end of the kick, but if that is the case, why not just change the rule to say that if it is that much easier?

Ok, end of soapbox.

You are right. This is a situation where a valid or invalid fair catch signal has been given, the down has not ended, but the kick has.

PSU, I think you could be right. But somebody better in high school rules than myself will have to answer. I know the college rules better. And if you are right, then seems like the test key must be wrong in that case.

No, you're absolutely correct. Take the situation where the receiver signals for a fair catch but lets the ball hit behind him and hopefully roll into the the endzone. The receiver who gave the signal can't block covering K players to prevent them from downing the ball near the goal line.

I don't know what the controvery is about this. The rule clearly states that "A receiver who has given a valid or invalid fair-catch signal shall not block an opponent until the kick has ended." (Rule 9-3-3)

Here's another play. Instead of having a kick that bounces back behind the line, let's just have the kick go straight up and be caught behind the line. Suppose that B1 signals for a fair catch during the kick, then he could not block until the kick ends. The kick would end when it was caught behind the line, but the down would not.

So PSU213 & albamabluezebra, I think you are absolutely correct. And albamabluezebra, the key must be wrong as you suspect.

I like the college rule better, it's more straightforward.

And remember, the ball only becomes dead if R recovers the kick beyond, in, or behind the NZ after a valid or invalid FC signal, so if it bounces back, or never crosses the NZ and K recovers it, the kick will end, but not the down.

It's a poorly written question. The test writer was thinking of a basically play where the down would end when the kick ended. But thwere are scenarios where the kick could end but the down would not.

Bottom line: The NF has the answer as true. Don't overthink the question when taking their exam. It will get you into trouble every time.

I don't think this question was read into too much if you answered it false, cuz it is false. I don't know if this is a poorly worded question as it is important to know that after a valid or invalid FC signal a kick can end without the down ending. Those times were indicated above.

I think putting #2 in the "rule changes" area is a bad question cuz most are answering it true, as I did, but it has been pointed out that "technically" it is false cuz you can still have OPI. That is NOT the intent of the rule, or the question. Putting that in the location they did, IMO, is poorly done.

Can he block before giving a faircatch signal? Is that during the down?

Agree, poorly worded question but I think it is true.

You are saying it is true cuz it is worded poorly, cuz he definitely can block after the kick has ended but before the down has ended. That is right in the book - rule 6-5-1.