Blocked Kicked

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by MJT

But Grant, don't you agree that R could give the ball a new force? Now, like I said, if in doubt, we have a safety.

True, but in the example giving, it says "slowly rolling" so in my interpretation it is still a kick. If the original example says, "momentarily comes to rest, then touched by R" then you would have a new force and a touchback for K. That would be fun to explain to the coach!

[MJT]

Totally agree Grant.

[bluezebra]

All this discussion means squat. Where was the ball snapped from? Was the 5-yard line in the neutral zone? Example: The snap was from the 10-yard line, and the ball is blocked at the 5. What do you have? There is NO 'new force' involved.

This is an example of the typical questions on these forums. Not enough information given. And everyone gives an opinion.

Bob

[Forksref]

"barely touches" is, to me, not a new force. Therefore, safety.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

True, but in the example giving, it says "slowly rolling" so in my interpretation it is still a kick. If the original example says, "momentarily comes to rest, then touched by R" then you would have a new force and a touchback for K. That would be fun to explain to the coach!

I suspect there's a misunderstanding here - if I'm wrong, my apologies, Grant.

The fact that it is still a kick would only matter (a) if the ball were going into R's end zone, or (b) if the kick were still in flight. New force may be added to a grounded kick, even if it is still rolling.

PLAY: K 4/20 @ K10. Punt from goal line is blocked by R @ K5. Ball is rolling towards the sideline @ K7 when it is muffed by R. The muff causes the ball to roll into K's end zone, where it is recovered by the punter.

RULING: Touchback. R provided a new force to the grounded scrimmage kick.

Now, our original play presumed a ball much closer to the goal line and less of an impact by R, so it sounds like a safety. But the bottom line is that on a grounded kick, it's going to be a judgement call on whether a muff by R causes the ball to enter the end zone.

[RoyGardner]

Under NCAA rules the facts that the kick never crossed the NZ AND that B never touched the ball beyond the NZ means that unless some illegal act (kick, bat. etc) takes place, and unless in the interim B actually has possession, if A ends up with the ball down in the EZ it is a safety. It does not matter how many times the ball was "muffed" by either team, A ball in the EZ on this play has to be a safety.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by RoyGardner

Under NCAA rules the facts that the kick never crossed the NZ AND that B never touched the ball beyond the NZ means that unless some illegal act (kick, bat. etc) takes place, and unless in the interim B actually has possession, if A ends up with the ball down in the EZ it is a safety. It does not matter how many times the ball was "muffed" by either team, A ball in the EZ on this play has to be a safety.

College isn't my thing (yet), but it's still good to know. Thanks!

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by The Roamin' Umpire

I suspect there's a misunderstanding here - if I'm wrong, my apologies, Grant.



The fact that it is still a kick would only matter (a) if the ball were going into R's end zone, or (b) if the kick were still in flight. New force may be added to a grounded kick, even if it is still rolling.

PLAY: K 4/20 @ K10. Punt from goal line is blocked by R @ K5. Ball is rolling towards the sideline @ K7 when it is muffed by R. The muff causes the ball to roll into K's end zone, where it is recovered by the punter.

RULING: Touchback. R provided a new force to the grounded scrimmage kick.

Now, our original play presumed a ball much closer to the goal line and less of an impact by R, so it sounds like a safety. But the bottom line is that on a grounded kick, it's going to be a judgement call on whether a muff by R causes the ball to enter the end zone.

This play is verbatim from this year's case book, page 57, 8.5.2 C. I think my confusion here is I was thinking in terms of "once a kick, always a kick" until possessed. I was specifically thinking of R's endzone, not K's endzone. Obviously when dealing with K's own endzone, that is where force and a grounded kick comes into play. I was thinking along the wrong lines. Plays like this encourage me to get into the rule and casebook and figure things out. Thanks for the clarification.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The issue in the original post isn't whether it's still a kick or not; it's who supplied the force. As described, I would go with the kick still being the force and a safety would result.