Free Kick - ball is kicked high and short. R1 signals for a fair catch and begins running toward the ball in flight. The ball hits the ground at R's 40. Before R1 can recover the grounded kick, K1 blocks R1 preventing him from recovering the ball. Legal or illegal?

What if the same action occurred in the NZ?

I do not have my book - so please provide rule info.

fair catch not applicable on free kick.

Nonsense. Why would you think that.

Legal.

You can signal for a fair catch on any kick. The blocking by K is legal in both plays. Once the ball hits the ground the opportunity for a fair catch has ended. However, the receiving team can not advance the ball beyond the point of control nor can the player who signaled for the free catch block or basically participate in the the play until it's ended.

[Edited by shave-tail on Oct 25th, 2005 at 07:27 PM]

Signaler cannot block until the kick has ended.

Thanks....you can read and re-read and not see the mistake!!!!!!

Although the FC will not be valid cuz the ball was grounded, the receiver who signaled is still given protection. Where does it say that his protection is terminated cuz the ball was grounded?

SECTION 5 FAIR CATCH
ART. 1 . . . Any receiver may signal for a fair catch while any legal kick is in flight. Any receiver who has given a valid or invalid fair-catch signal is prohibited from blocking until the kick has ended.
ART. 2 . . . It is a fair catch and the ball is dead if any receiver gives a valid fair-catch signal, as in Article 1, and he catches a free kick in or beyond the neutral zone to R's goal line, or a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone to R's goal line.
<b>ART. 3 . . . Only the receiver who gives a valid signal is afforded protection. If, after a receiver signals, the catch is made by a teammate, it is not a fair catch but the ball becomes dead.</b>

From what I am seeing, you should have KCI on the play you described. We had a very similar situation last night in a JV game, which I am going to post as separate question for. Be looking for it and give me your input.

If the player who signaled for the fair catch is prohibited from blocking, then he is essentially defenseless. Why would the kicker be able to hit a defenseless player. I would not have kick catch interference, but I probably would have a personal foul under 9-4-2-b.

REPLY: He can ward off a blocker. He just can't initiate the block.

I thought you could only have KCI while the ball is in flight.

Schwinn is right... you need all 6 articles here, not just the 3. Art 6 tells you what K cannot do (the "protection" mentinoed in Art 3) while the BALL IS IN FLIGHT. Once it's grounded, all bets are off.

And while you're right that R can't block, he can certainly defend himself, and is not "defenseless". Also R is not barred from participating - he can certainly try to recover the ball. He just can't block anyone.

I don't see in the rules or casebook that a player can defend himself after a fair catch signal. Does anyone have a cite?

I think that most of us agree that if the ball hit the ground ten yards away from the fair catch and the player just stood there and was hit we would have a flag (not KCI due to the grounded ball).

Thus, why does the player running toward the ball change things?

Thanks - that is what I was overlooking - "in flight". I knew within reason R could be blocked but could not find a reference in the book as to when.

parepat - where in the rulebook does it say that ANYONE can defend themselves when being blocked? It doesn't say that anywhere, but it doesn't say they can't - you obviously assume they can.

The rules specifically prohibit certain actions. If it's not prohibited, it's allowed. These rules prohibit the receiver from blocking. No reason to extend this to other actions that are not specifically prohibited.

The problem here is in the definition of ball in flight. Is the ball still in flight even after it has touched the ground? If so, then it is KKI on K. Because R is afforded protection after giving a valid fair catch signal. If you deem the ball grounded butloose,then all bets are off and K can block R from the ball.

Well, which is it?

Personally, I'm not going to flag anything here.

I can't tell if that was serious or not, so I'll answer like it was. If you were being sarcastic, you win, I bit.

A ball in flight is defined as one that has not touched the ground. Pretty simple. Once it hits the ground, it's no longer a ball in flight, which then answers your other questions.

You can't have a ball in flight after it touches the ground and you can only CATCH a live ball in flight. You recover a live ball that's hit the ground.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by mcrowder
[B]Schwinn is right... you need all 6 articles here, not just the 3. Art 6 tells you what K cannot do (the "protection" mentinoed in Art 3) while the BALL IS IN FLIGHT. Once it's grounded, all bets are off.


Again, where does it say that the protection ends when the ball is no longer in flight. The player who gives the fair catch is prohibited from blocking until "the kick ends". Doesn't it stand to reason that his protection lasts until the kick ends as well.

Any other interpretation leads to the conclusion that any player who gives a fair catch but doesn't catch the ball can be taken out as soon as the ball hits the ground.

Furthermore, the rules do not only tell us what it prohibited. They also tell us what is authorized. I am of the opinion that this particular situation is not covered under the rules. That is why it makes a good topic for discussion.

I've always been curious about the wording that no player who gives a fair catch signal can block until the kick ends. Can anyone tell me a scenario where he would be allowed to block since once a signal is made the ball becomes dead an the down ends as soon as either team gets possession?

REPLY: No, it's not. See NF 2-1-3: (in part) "A loose ball which has not yet touched the ground is in flight. A grounded loose ball is one which has touched the ground."

don't move.

This situation comes up so the receiver cannot signal and then block a memeber of the kicking team in order to prevent K from downing the ball near the goal line.

Don't move:


The only thing I can think is if the ball bounces back behind the neutral zone, and K recovers and advances. I don't think you kill the play in that situation, even thought there's been a FC signal by R beyond the NZ. That's the only thing I can come up with.

The rule says he can't block until "the kick ends". The kick ends when the ball is in player possession. The ball is dead in any case where a R player signals FC and any R player gains possession of the ball, and also in any case where K gains possession of the ball on R's side of the NZ. So the only answer can be a kick that does not cross (or ends up) on K's side of the NZ.

It's holding by K. Fair catchi protection for R ends when the ball becomes grounded, but K cannot prevent R from capturing the ball by tackling (holding) him. Different scenario: Pitch from QB (A1) to A2. Prior to A2 catching the ball B1 tackles A2. Defensive holding on B1. Same thing

Just a question on this. In the description above, I agree 100%. K cannot tackle the guy. However, K can grab or pull on R in an effort to get to the ball. Just like the defense can grab or pull in an effort to get to the ball carrier. But not grab or pull to make room for a teammate to get to the ball.

But along the lines of the tackle. How many times have you seen R muff the ball and get tackled by K, and hear the announcers say "that was a great play by K to keep R from getting to the ball." As an official, you grant some leeway to K when there is possibility that R may have caught the ball. But if you think K's purpose in tackling was to prevent R from recovering the ball, would you flag it?

What rule says fair catch protection ends when the ball is grounded. I've not found that.

parepat - you can block anyone, anywhere, anytime... UNLESS it's prohibited by a rule. Blocking, tackling, etc are LEGAL, unless prohibited by a rule.

The rule listed above tells you what you can't do to a receiving team member WHILE THE BALL IS IN FLIGHT. When the ball is no longer in flight, normal rules apply.

The problem here is that the ball wasn't muffed, but misplayed due to the short kick. If the the ball had been muffed by R, all restrictions for K have ended, and K can pull, push. bloc,.... etc. R in order to get the ball. I believe that, even though it isn't stated in the book, all fair-catch protection for R ends when the ball becomes grounded, which is what happened in the situation. Now, does K still have to give R the opportunity to capture the loose ball before he can block or tackle R? That's the question that needs to be answered. I believe (and I'm often wrong) that K has interfered with R's opportunity to get possession of the ball, and "KCI" is the right call.

What rule are you talking about. I don't see any rule that deals with fair catch that limits action "while the ball is in flight".

You need to start with Rule 2-4... 1 and 2... A catch is the act of establishing player possession of a live ball which is in flight....

Then rule 2-9-1 A fair catch is a catch by a receiver of a free kick ....

Then just to contrast... look at rule 2-34 ... A recovery is gaining possession of a live ball after it strikes the ground...

So once the ball touches the ground, R can no longer make a
"catch", so protection ends... since he can no longer make a fair catch. R can only recover, but since R made a fair catch signal... R can no longer advance.... rule 6-5-5 ...
No receiver may advance the ball after a valid or invalid fair-catch signal has been given by any member of the receiving team.

Wrong. Wrong. Wrong. Just because he can't make a fair catch doesn't mean his protection ends. You can quote as many inapplicable rules as you want, it doesn't change the facts. As I said there is no rule that tells us when the protection ends. There is no case book play that tells us when the protection ends. There is a rule however, (6-5-1) that tells us that the (fair catcher-new word) can't block until the kick has ended. So we know that in exchange for fair catch protection, the fair catcher is restricted. If we are going to read into the rules (which I am not) it is far more sensible that his protection would be equal to his restriction (ie protection until the kick ends... not until the kick hits the ground).

Otherwise we are back to this situation

Fair catcher (FC) gives a valid fair catch signal but does not catch the ball. One microsecond after the ball hits the gound, FC is hit so hard that his head pops off and roles to a stop at the feet of the backjudge. The hit is other wise legal in all respects.

ANSWER; according to some... legal play.

I respectfully disagree.

parepat - the original play was concerning a free kick. So if the kick has gone ten yards and been grounded, then K has just as much right to possess the ball as R. How long are you going to protect R?

I also agree that on a scrimmage kick, you are not going to let K blast the person who signalled a microsecond after it touches the ground.

Does R's protection end after R muffs the ball on a scrimmage kick?

I agree with you that it is a much tougher sell on a free kick. However, my point is, and has been, that there is nothing in the rules that tells us when the protection ends. Also, there is certainly nothing in the rules that differentiates protection between a free and scrimmage kick.

I wonder if the NCAA more clearly defines the duration of the protection on a fair catch.

REPLY: parepat...you're correct that nothing in the Federation rules explicitly says when the receiver's protection ends. Conversely, the NCAA rules do say that the protection ends when the kick touches the ground.

I believe that's the way it intended to be interpreted in Federation code as well. If not, wouldn't the receivers have a distinct unfair advantage in pursuing a kick that either team could legally possess, i.e. a free kick beyond R's restraining line or a scrimmage kick that has been touched by R beyond the NZ?

I believe that this is the reason that R's protection ends when a fair catch is no longer possible. Just my opinion.

I was kidding about the definition of a "ball-in-flight". But, the fair catch calling R is afforded protection only while the ball is in the air. (dont over complicate the rule) Once the ball hits the ground, protection for him ends. But, he cannot get involved in the play since the FC signal nullifies his involvement. And since the ball has traveled at least ten yards in the air and hit the ground, it is a grounded ball which can be recovered by K and R.

For a free kick, this discussion is pretty theoretical since no one will have the time to keep watching a player who signals but does not catch the free kick. The mechanics are there for a scrimmage kick, but for a free kick that can be recovered by K you best be watching to see who ends up with the ball.

By involvement, you mean he can't block anyone until the kick ends. But he sure can try to get the ball.