Blocked Kicked

[Sooner75]

K1's punt is blocked on K's 5 yard line and the ball is slowly rolling near the goal line. R1 attempts to recover and just barely touches the ball. The ball then rolls into the end zone where K2 falls on it.

Rule Reference.

[MJT]

Depends if you feel it was a new force or not, 2-13-1, 2-13-2. If in doubt, IMO if K did not want to have a safety then they should not have let R block the kick. I'd have no new force and therefor a safety.

[RoyGardner]

For NCAA rules see 6-3-1 and AR 6-3-1 IV. Status of the ball is still kick (no new impetus), and the live ball is recovered by K in K's EZ.

Result of the play is a safety, 2 points for R.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

I agree with MJT. Also, compare/contrast with NF casebook 8.5.3C - in that play, the ruling specifically says that force by R can make this a touchback instead of a safety. But on this play, I need to be pretty sure that R caused the ball to go into the end zone or I have a safety.

[Jim D]

I agree with MJT's comments. R made a great play by blocking the kick. Unless you are possitive R forced the ball into the end zone, it should be ruled a safety. Don't let K off the hook just because R jostled the ball.

[grantsrc]

2 pts for R. Safety- ball is still a kick therefore A is responsible for ball in own endzone.

[Jim D]

But after a kick has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff (2-13-1) if we're talking about K's endzone. It's always a kick and force is not a factor if it goes in R's endzone.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

2 pts for R. Safety- ball is still a kick therefore A is responsible for ball in own endzone.

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.

[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.

[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.