Had this happen Friday night, I can't find a rule on point, but if feels like we may have missed it. Fair catch signaled for by R1. K2 blocked R2 about 5 yards from R1. R2, as a result of the block, stumbled into R1 just as R1 attempted to catch the punt. R1 muffs, and K recovers. We gave it to K.

I could not find a case on point in the case book or the rule book to support a KCI call.

Thoughts please.

That's how I'd rule the result. K's ball.

Contact is exempted for K when R blocks K into the receiver not the other way around.

Theisey, He said that K blocked R2 into R1 not R2 blocking K into R1. Do you still have K ball?

We had a similar play this Fri that eventually ended in an ejection. R1 is waiting for the punted ball. R2 is about 5 yards away and K is approaching. R1 retreats from the ball and K attempts to block R2 into the ball. FJ bags it as he sees it first touch K then R2 at which point K picks it up and takes off. BJ blows it dead and talks it over with FJ. When I get there FJ says I've got first touching by K. Coach is yelling that R touched it. My guys agree but not until after first touching. Now K players start repeating that R touched it. My umpire and FJ tell them that 1. They can't block R into the ball and 2. K first touched. K, now B, keeps mouthing in the huddle. I walk over and let them know that we explained the rule, they had their say, we heard them and that is all we'd listen to. As I walked away, B's best player, QB and SF, says "You Mfers can't see a GD thing" right behind our Umpire. He nails him and we end up with another UC on the guy. He'll get to think about it all next week.

NF 6-5-6 (emphasis mine): "While ... any scrimmage kick is in flight beyond the neutral zone to the receiver's goal line, K shall not touch the ball or R, unless blocked into the ball or R or to ward off a blocker, nor obstruct R's path to the ball. This prohibition applies even when no fair-catch signal is given, ..."

If, as you describe, K2 initiates the contact with R2, you have KCI, even without the FC signal. Awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul, or 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down.

Yes, K gets the ball.

My statement was "Contact is exempted for K when R blocks K into the receiver not the other way around".
R blocking K into the R receiver is not a KCI foul. That was more of a rule statement of fact.

The "not the other way around" part means K blocking R into R's own receiver is NOT a KCI foul against K.

I think we are all on the same page here.

But if the ball is in flight, it would be KCI. Assuming R2 is in position to catch the kick, if K blocks R1 into R2 and the ball is in flight, then R1 would be in position to catch the kick as well. KCI.

Lets not try to muddle this up. This is KCI and R's ball at spot of foul or have K rekick with 15 yd marked off.

Agree... this is kick catching interference.

According to the original post, the contact between K2 and R2 was about 5 yards from R1.
1) Lets assume R1 was in position to receive the kick, I think it is a stretch to say R2 was also in position 5 yards away.
2) We are all assuming that K2 initiated the contact, I think it is just as plausible that R2 was blocking K2 and was overpowered into R1.
3) R1 signaled for the fair catch not R2, R1 is the receiver afforded special protection. He is to be given an unobstructed opportunity to catch the kick. This contact was with his own player not K, therefore the K player did not obstruct his opportunity to make a fair catch.

It will be K's ball, 1st and ten at the spot of recovery.

I'm not going to get into a what if this or what if that battle.
I did not assume K was first to block R2. Seemed clear to me that it's R's job to block K so their receiver can get some running room.
The R players are 5 yards apart. That's far enough apart for me to assume that R2 had one thing in mind and that was to block K.
Unfortunately for R2, K was possibly bigger and faster and cleaned his clock so to speak thus causing R2 to collide with R1.

KCI on K? not in my opinion, nor do I see by any rule either.

I'd say KCI. If K contacts R while the ball is in flight it is KCI (unless K is warding off R who is blocking him). Doesn't seem to matter whether R is in position to catch the ball.

Please read orginal post. R 1 signals for fair catch.
R2 is 5 yards away. K blocks R2.

This is KCI. no what ifs.

Why would r2 block on Fair catch signal by R1, who is 5 yds away.

The Roamin' Umpire
Senior Member

Registered: Aug 2004
Posts: 185

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by don't move
Had this happen Friday night, I can't find a rule on point, but if feels like we may have missed it. Fair catch signaled for by R1. K2 blocked R2 about 5 yards from R1. R2, as a result of the block, stumbled into R1 just as R1 attempted to catch the punt. R1 muffs, and K recovers. We gave it to K.

I could not find a case on point in the case book or the rule book to support a KCI call.

Thoughts please.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


NF 6-5-6 (emphasis mine): "While ... any scrimmage kick is in flight beyond the neutral zone to the receiver's goal line, K shall not touch the ball or R, unless blocked into the ball or R or to ward off a blocker, nor obstruct R's path to the ball. This prohibition applies even when no fair-catch signal is given, ..."

If, as you describe, K2 initiates the contact with R2, you have KCI, even without the FC signal. Awarded fair catch at the spot of the foul, or 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down.


[Edited by andy1033 on Oct 17th, 2005 at 01:11 PM]

I agree, I'm with Theisey.

This was my origional post. Thanks for all the input.
To clarify a few things: it was impossible to tell which player initiated contact, they appeared to have been 'locked up' for a while, and as keystoneref surmised, K1 just got the best of R2 and they just happened to be near R1. Actually I don't think either K1 or R2 had any idea where the ball was or that a fair catch signal had been made, they were just interested in each other. Does any of this make a difference?

Sure it does. If it was not a block by K. Then no foul.

My point was R2 hits R1 causing the muff. Now if the initial contact by K was 5 yards aways, no KCI. Or even if it was 1 yard away and the contact was initiatated by R2, no KCI.

However, I'd think that if K initiatiated contact with R2, and R2 close enough to R1, you could have KCI. Regardless of the fact that R2 is not trying to catch the ball, if he is in a position to make the catch, KCI.

This is one of those situations you would have to see to be able to rule on. Saying R2 is 5 yards away, then stumbles into R1 after being hit doesn't give all the detail. Did R2 try to block K? Did K blast R2 in an attempt to get to R1? What happened?

I tried to clarrify in my last post near the bottom of page 1, it was impossible to tell which player initiated contact. The punt was fairly short and there were several groups op players in various stages of contact with opponents. No one 'blasted' anyone. The 2 players were in contact (locked up) for at least several seconds before the contact with the receiver occurred and they were moving in unison. When contact was broken, R2 ran into his own player. K1 was obviously trying to close in on R1 in case he muffed the punt or to make the tackle and R2 was trying to keep him from it, hoping to block for the return. As I said, I am sure neither one was aware of the fair catch signal. But the question still remains: EVEN IF K1 initiates contact with R2 and EVEN IF his block clearly knocked R2 into R1, does that constitute KCI? Rule 6-5-6 states K cannot interfere with the ball or R unless blocked into the ball or R, or to ward off a blocker, but that doesn't accurately describe our situation.
For now, I'm going to go with "K1 was 'warding off' blocker R2", and give the ball to K on the recovery, which is what I did Friday night.

In a word, yes.

I have a new spin on this play:

Rule 6-2-4
Any kicker may catch or recover a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the neutral zone or the expanded neutral zone, provided such kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time of touching. Such touching is ignored if it is caused by K pushing or blocking R into contact with the ball...

In my opinion, the spirit behind 6-2-4 would apply to the play first posted in this thread. Even though the K player pushed an R player who was not going to catch the kick, K's pushing R2 into R1 caused the muff which could be argued is covered by rule 6-2-4.

My ruling: Ignore the touching by R and consider K's recovery as first touching. R's ball at the spot of K's recovery and no foul for KCI.