|
|||
NCAA Enforcement
4/1 @ A-30. While Kicker A1's punt is in the air, B55 blocks A56 below the waist at the B-40 yardline. The punt lands at the B-30 and A3 tries to down the ball at the B-33 but he muffs it there and the ball rolls into B99's leg at the B-32. A-55 falls on the ball at the B-31.
Rulings/References. Thanks |
|
|||
Canadian Rule
Quote:
So, in this play (which would be on 3rd down in Canada) , we would have No Yards against Team A55, and Blocking Below the Waist on B55. The penalties are balanced out from the B-31 yard line. End result, Team B 1st and 10 at the B36 yard line. |
|
|||
Quote:
I'll let someone else jump in to say where the PSK spot is. Last edited by MJT; Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 12:44am. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Being hit by a ball muffed by Team A does not constitute forced touching by B. Therefore, A is in possession at the end of the down. PSK enforcement does not apply. A can take the 15 yard penalty from previous spot and an auto 1st or decline and take ball at the B-31, which is what they would choose.
|
|
|||
Quote:
Under NFHS First, the muff by A would lead to the touching by B being ignored, which means that PSK enforcement will apply here. Second, the right of B to take the ball at the spot of first touching is only cancelled if a penalty is accepted or if B fouls after touching the kick. So, if the penalty is declined, B 1/10 @ B33. But the penalty will almost certainly be accepted, resulting in B 1/10 @ B16. (15 yards from the PSK spot, the end of the kick.) |
|
|||
Quote:
In NCAA rule 6-3-4 says ""an inbounds player touched by the ball batted by an opponent is not deemed to have touched the ball," and AR 6-3-4-III discusses a "bat" but not a muff. Thus, it appears this is one of the differences between NF and NCAA. I think muffing the ball into another player should not be considered touching by R, but it appears it is in NCAA. TXMike, would you give the benefit of the doubt to it being a "bat" instead of a "muff" so PSK would still be in effect, since the rule is to not give an advantage to the kicking team and allowing them a new set of downs when they kicked the ball? I'm not saying if it was an obvious muff, but one that could possibly considered a bat. Mike, do you think that a muff maybe would be a good addition to the NCAA rule? |
|
|||
Quote:
This point is what caused so much discussion the other day at our study group that I thought I'd post the question here. As I read it, the "forced touching is no touching" only applies to 1) B being blocked into the ball by A and 2) B being hit by a ball batted by A. Nowhere does it state anything about a muff. But like MJT was alluding to, some of our guys felt that the spirit of the rules should include a muff for the same reasons as a bat or being blocked, however they agreed that it simply wasn't in the rules. Thus, A has legal possession at the end of the down if the penalty is accepted because in doing so, the illegal touching is ignored. Therefore, we can't have PSK enforcement (10-2-2-e, Exc. 3-e) So we can either have a 15 yard penalty enforced from the PS with an auto 1st down, or if A declines then B gets the ball 1/10 at the spot of illegal touching at the B-33 Last edited by DJ_NV; Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 11:03am. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
|
|||
Quote:
Last edited by MJT; Sat Jun 02, 2007 at 08:22pm. |
|
|||
Quote:
|
Bookmarks |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
NCAA LOD enforcement | DJ_NV | Football | 7 | Tue Oct 03, 2006 03:57pm |
Enforcement of 1-5-3k | alabamabluezebra | Football | 2 | Sat Sep 03, 2005 11:43pm |
Enforcement? | jimmiececil | Football | 4 | Tue Aug 23, 2005 11:41am |
NCAA enforcement Question | DoubleD | Football | 5 | Thu Jan 08, 2004 11:16pm |