Effect of a Touched Kick

[w_sohl]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: Going back to the original play posted by gtwbam, it will be K's ball 1-10 from the previous spot. The LTG has no more significance in this play once R touches the kick beyond the ENZ.

DUH, should have realized that. Just so much to think about on this play.

[Warrenkicker]

Originally posted by gtwbam
Fourth and 10 on K's 45-yard line. K1 punts the ball beyond the neutral zone. R1 muffs the ball back behind the neutral zone where K1 recovers and throws a legal forward pass to K3 which is incomplete.

There were

Originally posted by WVREF
ineligibles down field.

It is still 4th down because of penalty enforcement or is it now 1-10 for K after the penalty is marked off? I think it is 1-10 for K from K-40 because of the touching of the kick by R.

[kdf5]

[i]...I think it is 1-10 for K from K-40 because of the touching of the kick by R. [/B]

Are you saying you'd wave off the flag for ineligibles? I thought that the ball goes to the team in possession at the end of the down if R touches the kick unless a penalty is accepted for a non-PSK foul which occured before the kick ended.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
It is still 4th down because of penalty enforcement or is it now 1-10 for K after the penalty is marked off? I think it is 1-10 for K from K-40 because of the touching of the kick by R.

REPLY: No...it will be 4th down for K. Accepting the penalty for the ineligibles downfield calls for a replay of the previous down. Remember that the kick-muff-pass play is negated by acceptance of the penalty.

[Warrenkicker]

kdf5 - I had enforced the IDF from K-45 to K-40.

Bob M. - But if, without the foul, you would give A/K the ball with a 1-10 after the touched kick, would you somewhat equate that to a change of possession as the pass after the touching had no effect on the down changing or who got the ball?

Understandibly somewhat different but after an interception, B throws an IFP, would you take away the change of possession and give the ball back to A? I wouldn't.

I know these are exactly the same plays but fouls after a change in possession don't negate the change. In this play there was no actual change of possession but it is treated that way in that K may retain possession of the ball and get a new series of downs without reaching the line to gain.

So my point is that K/A was awarded a new series, through the touching, with clean hands and then fouled. I don't see the reason to take the new series away from them on this obscure, probably never happen in my lifetime, play.

I just don't see that the repeat of the down which the penalty specifies overrides the new series awarding by the touching. Just because penalties specify the repeating of a down or loss of down does not mean we are always able to enforce it.

[dumbref]

The IDF makes this an interesting play! Because the pass occurred from behind the neutral zone, this became a loose ball play and would constitute re-playing of the down.

Read 5-1-3f closely.

The team in possession at the end of the down, if R is first to touch a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the expanded neutral zone, unless the penalty is accepted for a non PSK foul which occurred before the kick ended.

The foul definitely occurred after the kick ended. So why wouldn’t it be K’s ball with a new series after penalty enforcement?

If I were a good lawyer, I could argue either side with vigor!

Change the foul to an illegal pass from beyond the neutral zone. Who’s ball and what down then?


[Edited by dumbref on Aug 26th, 2005 at 12:16 PM]

[kdf5]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
...I just don't see that the repeat of the down which the penalty specifies overrides the new series awarding by the touching...

Warrenkicker: I guess I'm assuming that in your post: "Fourth and 10 on K's 45-yard line. K1 punts the ball beyond the neutral zone. R1 muffs the ball back behind the neutral zone where K1 recovers and throws a legal forward pass to K3 which is incomplete". and there are "ineligibles down field" means that the ineligibles are downfield between the muff and the recovery. This would mean that 5-1-3f comes into play and that R will accept the ineligibles penalty and thereby nullfying 5-1-3f and we would replay the down. Forgive me if I'm off track with your post.

[Warrenkicker]

kdf5 - Well they may or may not have been beyond the neutral zone during the kick. They probably were. However it is not illegal to be beyond the neutral zone until the legal pass is thrown. So I don't think you are off track with what I am thinking but you are just saying that the foul occurs at a different time than I say it does. I say it is clearly after the kick ended.

dumbref - I don't see much difference in your situation except that if the penalty disallows the 1-10 for K then R gets the ball due to the loss-of-down. Perhaps a play with larger ramifications than mine.

[dumbref]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: No...it will be 4th down for K. Accepting the penalty for the ineligibles downfield calls for a replay of the previous down. Remember that the kick-muff-pass play is negated by acceptance of the penalty.

Bob M.: Why is the kick/muff/pass negated? The foul occurred after the kick ended.

Warrenkicker: On the illegal pass situation - the net effect of the play is change of posession - I think LOD would be overruled by the awarding of a new series. If after an interception, B threw an illegal pass the loss of down would be waved. Why not in this case?

[Edited by dumbref on Aug 27th, 2005 at 10:28 PM]

[MJT]

I was thinking about this play, and what Bob M said the whole day yesterday and discussed it with "Big House", my L who is on my HS crew, and we both are thinking it would still be 1-10 for K after the IDF foul cuz they got possession with clean hands, and then fouled.

We need Bob M to get back on here and give his arguement. I'm sure we are all anxtious cuz Bob is not wrong very often so he has put doubt in our reasoning.

Come on Bob, get back in the ball game!

[WyMike]

Originally posted by MJT
I was thinking about this play, and what Bob M said the whole day yesterday and discussed it with "Big House", my L who is on my HS crew, and we both are thinking it would still be 1-10 for K after the IDF foul cuz they got possession with clean hands, and then fouled.

Good discussion here and made me open up a number of case book plays! Thanks.

This season I'm starting my first game as Varsity BJ so I'm really studying up on the muffed kick scenarios so this thread has been great.

I agree with MJT's take here. Once R muffs and K recovers, "possesion" is ruled to be with K. And barring any fouls before K kicked, K would have possession from the spot where the muffed kick was recovered and we would go from there, correct?

WM

[kdf5]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
kdf5 - Well they may or may not have been beyond the neutral zone during the kick. They probably were. However it is not illegal to be beyond the neutral zone until the legal pass is thrown. So I don't think you are off track with what I am thinking but you are just saying that the foul occurs at a different time than I say it does. I say it is clearly after the kick ended.

My answer came from thinking the ineligibles downfield occured immediately after the ball was punted so you are right, I think the IDF did occur at a different time than you. They would have been caught so to speak downfield not realizing there was going to be a pass.

[Warrenkicker]

Originally posted by dumbref
Warrenkicker: On the illegal pass situation - the net effect of the play is change of posession - I think LOD would be overruled by the awarding of a new series. If after an interception, B threw an illegal pass the loss of down would be waved. Why not in this case?

I was saying that if it would have been K's ball still and replay 4th down then a penalty which includes a loss of down will then cause the ball to be turned over on downs.

But I still think it should be 1-10 for K on any of these situations.

[Edited by Warrenkicker on Aug 28th, 2005 at 03:14 PM]

[mmaguth]

I'm a new official and find myself very confused here.
Here's my take on it:

1. We have a scrimmage kick touched beyond the neutral zone by R, This now can be recovered by K or R at this point and a new series is awarded to the recovering team. (Rule 6-2-4)

The ball returns beyond the neutral zone where it is recovered by K and passed forward for an incomplete pass. *Here I would think is was an illegal forward pass since possession has changed during the down due to R's touching? (7-5-2a) You would have IFP on K and enforce 5yrds from spot of foul 1st and 10 K's ball.

Or would that not be considered change of possession since it was a muff by R (2-26), therefore the ball remains K's since they resecured possesion. You would then have a legal forward pass behind the neutral zone by K, which is incomplete. It would be 1st and 10 from K's 45, since they are awarded a new series due to R's touching.

Does this sound close at all or make any sense?

[MJT]

Originally posted by mmaguth
I'm a new official and find myself very confused here.
Here's my take on it:

1. We have a scrimmage kick touched beyond the neutral zone by R, This now can be recovered by K or R at this point and a new series is awarded to the recovering team. (Rule 6-2-4)

The ball returns beyond the neutral zone where it is recovered by K and passed forward for an incomplete pass. *Here I would think is was an illegal forward pass since possession has changed during the down due to R's touching? (7-5-2a) You would have IFP on K and enforce 5yrds from spot of foul 1st and 10 K's ball.

Or would that not be considered change of possession since it was a muff by R (2-26), therefore the ball remains K's since they resecured possesion. You would then have a legal forward pass behind the neutral zone by K, which is incomplete. It would be 1st and 10 from K's 45, since they are awarded a new series due to R's touching.

Does this sound close at all or make any sense?

mmaguth, we definitely do not have a COP cuz R never gained possession, they muffed it.