November Referee mag test Q#1

[kentref]

Fourth and 10 for team K from its own 20 yard line. With K1's punt in flight, R2 and R3 give valid fair-catch signals. R2 muffs the kick, and the ball ricochets toward R3. As R3 is about to catch the kick he is tackled by K4.

The stated ruling is "holding on K4." The rule reference given is 6-5-6. Per 6-5-6 the prescribed penalty is for "kick catching interference."

6-5-6 also states that the prohibition against contacting R or obstructing R's path to the ball does not apply after a scrimmage kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone ....

The case play cited (6.5.6.E) would appear to contradict the Referee mag ruling.

IMO, once R touches it then K is free to contact R and attempt to gain possession.

Thoughts by others?

[AndrewMcCarthy]

I would say you MIGHT have holding if the K player just tackled R3 but you don't have KCI or anything else on this play. I also don't agree with their rule references.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by AndrewMcCarthy

I would say you MIGHT have holding if the K player just tackled R3 but you don't have KCI or anything else on this play. I also don't agree with their rule references.

REPLY: I'm with Andrew here. COULD be holding, but is definitely NOT KCI.

[Two Call]

Kentref:

I was confused too until I re-read case book. 6.5.6E states that guy who made fair catch signal was contacted. In your play, different guy is contacted. I don't think this is interference

[Forksref]

Is this magazine worth it? Currently, I don't subscribe.

I do basketball and football. Is there enough accurate information in there to subscribe? I hear many times that the rulings that they make are questionable.

[Stripe]

Since R touched the ball, do we have anything?

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Stripe

Since R touched the ball, do we have anything?

REPLY: If by tackling, we mean that the K player wrapped his arms around R3 and restrained him, then yes...holding by K is a real possibility. But not KCI. Also, a legal block from the front above the waist would have been perfectly legal.