Effect of a Touched Kick

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: When did they not have possession??

Point taken, but I thought you said replay. I must have been mistaken.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: No...I think I did say 'replay.' I was basing that on NF 5-1-2 which says that you can't award a new series until you take into account all action (fouls) that occur during the down. Yes, K will normally be awarded a new series based upon R's touching beyond the neutral zone, but...their foul does throw a monkey wrench into that. Isn't that the same for all items in NF 5-1-3? Take 5-1-3a for example. "A new series is awarded to...Team A if the ball belongs to A on or beyond the line to-gain." Sure...but what if A fouls during that play? Do you still award the new series? Of course not. Why should it be any different for 5-1-3f? All of those 5-1-3 cases where a new series is due to be awarded are dependent upon fouls and their acceptance or declination. At least that's my opinion. I may be wrong, but there's nothing that clearly says that 5-1-3f should be excluded from the same 5-1-2 filter that the other 5-1-3 items need to pass through.

Likewise, for the play where both teams foul (IDF and DPI) this is a double foul since there is no change of possession, and you would replay the down. 'Clean hands' has no relevance in these plays since K was in team possession for the entire down.

[Warrenkicker]

I am still on the other side of the arguement from Bob M. even though I know that he knows his stuff. He wouldn't be writing articles in magazines if he didn't. I also acknowledge that possession does not actually change on the play we're discussing. My point is that the touching by R and the subsequent recovery by K is essentially identical to an actual change of possession. I realize that it does not fall within the definition of a change of possession and that is the weak point of my arguement.

I really don't have a problem if we should offset and replay 4th down on this play but it seems to me that the touching and recovery is so similar to an actual change of possession in every sense that K should have a choice to decline a penalty to keep the ball. But even saying that I do see the other side of the issue.

[l3will]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: No...I think I did say 'replay.' I was basing that on NF 5-1-2 which says that you can't award a new series until you take into account all action (fouls) that occur during the down. Yes, K will normally be awarded a new series based upon R's touching beyond the neutral zone, but...their foul does throw a monkey wrench into that. Isn't that the same for all items in NF 5-1-3? Take 5-1-3a for example. "A new series is awarded to...Team A if the ball belongs to A on or beyond the line to-gain." Sure...but what if A fouls during that play? Do you still award the new series? Of course not. Why should it be any different for 5-1-3f? All of those 5-1-3 cases where a new series is due to be awarded are dependent upon fouls and their acceptance or declination. At least that's my opinion. I may be wrong, but there's nothing that clearly says that 5-1-3f should be excluded from the same 5-1-2 filter that the other 5-1-3 items need to pass through.

Likewise, for the play where both teams foul (IDF and DPI) this is a double foul since there is no change of possession, and you would replay the down. 'Clean hands' has no relevance in these plays since K was in team possession for the entire down.

I too am on the other side of this.... The foul (IDF) occurred after the muff by R. The foul for IDF occurred
after the kick ended. So to my way of thinking and prior
discussions about this situation (this is always a favorite thing to bring up), it is going to be first down for whoever
has possession at the end of the down.

Key... R is the first to touch the scrimmage kick while it is beyond the line. There were no fouls prior to the kick ending. Thus a new series is awarded to the team in possession at the end of the down.

[Edited by l3will on Sep 16th, 2005 at 04:27 PM]

[Suudy]

I've just found this forum, and I'm excited to find such an interesting thread. I've emailed our association to discuss this one. But I've expanded the scenario a bit. Hows this for a casebook example?

It is 4th and 10 from K's 40. K punts the ball to K's 49 where R1 muffs the ball. The ball rebounds back to K's 39 where K1 picks up the ball, scrambles, and throws forward pass from K's 35. (a) K2 is inelgibile and is downfield and the pass falls incomplete, (b) K4 is eligible and while attempting to catch the ball at K's 45 is intefered with by R1, (c) K5 is ineligible and catches the ball at K's 38 (d) K6 is ineligible and catches the ball at K's 45, (e) K7 is ineligible and is downfield while K8 is eligible and while attempting to catch the ball at K's 45 is interfered with by R2.

Now we just need the answers...

[WVREF]

OK here's what our state rules clinician has said. Scenario 1 with just the IDF. 1st and 10 for K after marching off the penalty. Scenario 2 IDF and DFP double foul replay 4th down, since there was no actual change of possession "clean hands" doesn't apply.