kick play

[DrMooreReferee]

Kickoff from K's 40. The ball is bouncing at R's 25 yardline when K50 blocks
R20 into the ball. The ball bounces off of R20 and goes out of bounds at R's 10 yardline.

What options does R have?

[Grey Hare]

My understanding is that it will be R's ball at the out of bounds spot. The contact is ignored since K blocked R into the ball.

GH

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Grey Hare

My understanding is that it will be R's ball at the out of bounds spot. The contact is ignored since K blocked R into the ball.

GH

If that's the case, would you have a free kick OOB?

[cougar729]

I suppose that R would have the option of taking the ball at the out of bounds spot. They would also be able to back K up 5 yards and rekick, or have it 1/10 at the R 35

Forced touching is no touching

[Grey Hare]

I believe that would be true. 5 yd penalty on the kicking team, enforced from the previous spot. I don't have my rule books with me, but that seems correct.
GH

[Grey Hare]

Along with the other options mentioned by cougar......

[Jim D]

Just to clarify, the touching of R in this situation will be ignored only if it is caused by K pushing or blocking R into the ball. It would not be ignored if, while R was blocking K, the ball bounced back into R. This same play happened in the Oklahoma-Boise State game. R1 was blocking K1 on a punt when the ball hit the ground and took a bounce back toward the line of scrimmage and struck R in the back while he was in contact with K1. The ball was then recovered by K2 and K got possession.

In other words, just because blocking is going on, the touching is not ignored. K has to force the touching.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

Kickoff from K's 40. The ball is bouncing at R's 25 yardline when K50 blocks R20 into the ball. The ball bounces off of R20 and goes out of bounds at R's 10 yardline.

What options does R have?

CANADIAN RULING:

R 1D/10 @ R-10, no option.

Edit: We do have an interference rule that states that A cannot block. The philosophy is that this rule is rarely applied, unless it affects the recovery of the ball. A's block of B into the ball could meet that philosophy. Penalty is B ball at PF.

[DrMooreReferee]

Thanks to all who have replied. I was reading the rulebook last night. Unfortunately, I do not have it with me right here today. But the rulebook says that the touching by R would be ignored if it occurs IN the neutral zone. So, what I'm getting from this is that if K blocks R into the ball and it happens beyond the neutral zone. The that touching is not ignored. And therefore, R would only have the option of taking the ball at the inbounds spot.

But I was hoping someone could correct me on this. Because it just doesn't seem right to me. I would alos love to see a casebook example of this play.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: DrMoore...you're right. This touching by R is not ignored since (a) it's a free kick, and (b) it occurred beyond the neutral zone. R's only choice (and it's not really a choice, but rather a consequence of play) is to take the ball at the inbounds spot at R's 10. This type of touching (K blocking R into the ball) is only ignored on free kicks if it occurred in the neutral zone

[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