kick play

[cougar729]

Bob M, or anyone else, can you help point me in the direction of the rule book where it determines forced touching on scrimmage and free kicks?

[grantsrc]

Ok, so I think that since the original play deals with a free kick, the "forced" touching by R doesn't fall under the forced touching provisions. See 6-1-5. Since the ball is beyond the NZ, forced touching really doesn't come into play since K can legally recover the ball. So I would say that it will be R's ball at the inbounds spot.

Now, let's say the ball is still in the NZ, the forced touching would be ignored, correct? So with that, would we have a free kick OOB?

Good play to get the wheels going.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: cougar729...The two rules you're looking for are:

• NF 6-1-5 (free kicks) as grantsrc pointed out, and
• NF 6-2-4 (scrimmage kicks)

And grantsrc is precisely right as to the rationale: On free kicks since the ball is 'free' beyond the neutral zone, K cannot gain any advantage by forcing contact between R and the ball. Just like he can't gain any advantage by forcing contact on a scrimmage kick behind the neutral zone. That's why the Fed rules are silent on those situations. Conversely, he can gain a huge advantage by forcing contact in the NZ for free kicks and beyond the NZ for scrimmage kicks. That's why the two rules are written to ignore that touching.

And grant...you're right. If the touching were to have occurred in the NZ in the original play, that touching would be ignored and result in a free kick OOB infraction.

[Kirby]

I would have missed this one on the field. Thanks, guys.

[RazorRef]

Just in case there are any college guys reading this, don't get confused. The NCAA rule is that if an B (R) player is blocked into a kick by A (K) that has crossed the neutral zone, he is deemed to NOT have touched the ball.

6-1-4a, 6-2-4a

[MJT]

Originally Posted by RazorRef

Just in case there are any college guys reading this, don't get confused. The NCAA rule is that if an B (R) player is blocked into a kick by A (K) that has crossed the neutral zone, he is deemed to NOT have touched the ball.

6-1-4a, 6-2-4a

Yes, and I personally like that rule better! I don't think it should count as being touched at all since they were forced into the touching. It would be nice if they could take a FKOOB's if they want.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MJT

Yes, and I personally like that rule better! I don't think it should count as being touched at all since they were forced into the touching.

But there'd still be no incentive for K to block R into the ball when K could try for the ball themselves. In the latter case, if the ball goes OOB following the touch by K beyond the NZ in NCAA (last I knew), it's not a free kick OOB either. (Last touching by K is significant in NFL rules, however.) So why should R have penalty options for getting forced into a ball that goes OOB, when they wouldn't have such options if K touched it themselves beyond the NZ?

Look at the incentives. Suppose the free kicked ball is rolling near a sideline between the goal line & R's restraining line. Under the rule you propose, R has the incentive, instead of playing the ball themselves, to station themselves just in front & in-field of the ball, blocking K from recovery and secure in the knowledge that if the ball doesn't roll out of bounds untouched on its own, K might force R into the ball and likely cause it to go OOB. Don't you want R to have the incentive to play the free kick themselves rather than camping over it like that?

Robert