Forces of Kick

[DJ_NV]

In NFHS, it's the same result (TB)--it doesn't matter if the ball is behind or beyond the neutral zone, nor does it matter if the grounded ball is at rest or not. In this situation, whoever muffs across the GL is responsible for it being in the EZ and a Safety or TB will be ruled based on that.

In NCAA, it's a little different. In order for a muff to be considered new force, a grounded ball must be a rest. Not only that, but it doesn't necessarily have to be a muff. Any contact (other than being blocked into the ball) creates new force, or 'impetus' as it's referred to in NCAA.

[whitehat52]

DJ

I may have a disagreement with you on your answer.

"In NFHS, it's the same result (TB)--it doesn't matter if the ball is behind or beyond the neutral zone, nor does it matter if the grounded ball is at rest or not. In this situation, whoever muffs across the GL is responsible for it being in the EZ and a Safety or TB will be ruled based on that."

You say that it doesn't matter if the ball is at rest, whoever muffs the ball across the goal line is responsible for it being in the endzone. This is only true "if in the judgement of the covering official the muff applied a NEW FORCE to the ball. IF the ball would have crossed the goal line on its own then the kick is considered the force wether it was muffed or not. If the official is unsure if the muff supplied a new force, then he will rule that the force was the kick and the result will be either a touchdown if R secures possession in the endzone or a Safety if K has possession and is downed in the endzone or the ball is declared dead behind the goal line with no one in possession.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: One additional comment...the fact that A jumped on the ball in the endzone which then squirted back over te endline is immaterial to the discussion of force. With force, all that matters is what caused the ball to pass from the field of play across the goal line. What happens to the ball after it enters the endzone is important, but is in no way a factor in determining force.

[kdf5]

What about 4-4-2f for the ball at rest beyond the NZ?

[Niner]

Same scenerio, but change it to where when the ball is in the EZ, K intentional bats it across the endline.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Niner

Same scenerio, but change it to where when the ball is in the EZ, K intentional bats it across the endline.

REPLY: Foul by K during the kick (a loose ball play). Basic spot is the previous spot. If R declines the penalty, result of the play is a touchback (K, 1-10 at K's 20). If R accepts the penalty, enforcement will be from the spot of the foul since it's behind the basic spot resulting in a safety. Which do we think they'll choose?

Addendum: After you answer Roamin' Umpire's question, think about this. Would the result be any different if the ball was touched first by K who muffs it across R's goal line?

[Warrenkicker]

If the ball is truely at rest and K touches it then I have a dead ball instantly. However if a player of either team is coming to touch or recover it and the ball is at rest then I am waiting a bit longer.

I want to give Leon Lett as much time as he needs to get to the ball.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Funny, I misread all of this as taking place down near R's endzone. So:

4/7 @ R15. K lines up for FG, has it blocked, and the ball comes to rest at the R5. Several players dive for the ball - it is touched first by R, who muffs it into their own end zone. K falls on the ball there. Ruling?

[whitehat52]

4/7 @ R15. K lines up for FG, has it blocked, and the ball comes to rest at the R5. Several players dive for the ball - it is touched first by R, who muffs it into their own end zone. K falls on the ball there. Ruling?

2-23-4: A scrimmage kick is any legal kick from in or behind the neutral zone. Either a place kick, drop kick or punt may be used
2-23-2: A kick ends when a player gains possession or when the ball becomes dead while not in player possession.
4-2-f The ball becomes dead and the down is ended: when the kickers catch or recover any free kick anywhere, and when the kickers catch or recover a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone and when the kickers are first to touch a scrimmage kick after it has come to rest beyond the neutral zone and between the goal lines.
2-13-4: Force is not a factor: on kicks going into R's end zone, since these are always a touchback regardless of who supplied the force.

I have a touchback:

By definition it is still a kick. In your scenerio R is first to touch the ball after it came to rest, so the ball is not dead when they touch it. By definition it is still a kick (2-32-2) and Force is not a factor (2-13-4) Touchback!!!!!!

[whitehat52]

Sorry Bob

I was working on my answer as you were posting to niner.

[Theisey]

Originally Posted by The Roamin' Umpire

Funny, I misread all of this as taking place down near R's endzone. So:

4/7 @ R15. K lines up for FG, has it blocked, and the ball comes to rest at the R5. Several players dive for the ball - it is touched first by R, who muffs it into their own end zone. K falls on the ball there. Ruling?

If you believe 2-13-4-a, it would be a touchback.
If you don't believe it, than it would be a TD for K.

I happen to be a believer.

[Grey Hare]

Let me throw out there a "what if".

What if, in the original scenario where K was on their own 20 yd line, B blocked the punt, the ball came to rest on say the 10 yd line this time. This time B applies a new force to the ball and now it is rolling near the goal line where a K member intentionally or non-intentionally muffs the ball into or through the EZ. Is B still "responsible" for the force into the EZ since the ball was still rolling? What if, in the officials judgement, the ball would not have made it to the EZ without "help" from K?

What have we got then?

GH

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Grey Hare

Let me throw out there a "what if".

What if, in the original scenario where K was on their own 20 yd line, B blocked the punt, the ball came to rest on say the 10 yd line this time. This time B applies a new force to the ball and now it is rolling near the goal line where a K member intentionally or non-intentionally muffs the ball into or through the EZ. Is B still "responsible" for the force into the EZ since the ball was still rolling? What if, in the officials judgement, the ball would not have made it to the EZ without "help" from K?

What have we got then?

GH

REPLY: For Federation: First thing to remember is that solely from the perspective of determining force, K's touching of a scrimmage kick behind the NZ is not ignored. Therefore, that touching might constitute a new force in your example. It's entirely up to the covering official to determine whether or not K's touching added a new force (which means that the force attributed to R's muff is expended), or whether R's muff is still the force. Simply a judgement call. For NCAA: Unless R's muff comes to rest, K's touching cannot be considered a new impetus.