Free Kick Play
 

MJT asks...we deliver. Both Fed and NCAA can chew on this one.

PLAY: Following a safety and a penalty for a dead ball foul, A free kicks from his 10. His punt is nearly straight up. It bounces at A’s 14 and rebounds untouched back into A’s end zone. There, A1 muffs the kick out into the field of play. B2 then muffs the ball while attempting to recover. The ball is subsequently recovered by A3 at A’s 6 yard line. RULING: ??

We have a spot of first touching (FED) by A in A's end zone because the free kick did not advance beyond the 10-yard neutral zone. I'm not sure I've ever thought about how to handle this...

B has the right to take the ball at A's spot of first touching regardless of the fact that they muffed the ball in the field of play and A recoverd. A's kick is the force that caused the ball to go from the field of play into the end zone. I guess the question is...is a violation (first touching) committed in the end zone treated the same as a foul?

My ruling is that because we have a spot of first touching by A in their end zone, we can award B 2 points for a safety and A will again free kick (this time from the 20).

I can not think of and do not have rule support for my ruling. Am I close?

You definitely could have a safety, BUT I can think of another, probably more advantageous option for team R. And that would be...

It is first touching by K in their own endzone. Since R can take possession of the ball at the spot of first touching, that would give R a touchdown without ever handling the ball. How weird would that be?

NCAA:

Well I have to say this is a good one. To start, I do know that illegal touching of a scrimmage kick in Team A's end zone is ignored but that is only for scrimmage kicks. Illegal touching of a free kick is not ignored. The rules for illegal touching basically say that team B can take the ball where it it becomes dead by rule or at the spot of illegal touching. Obviously taking the ball at the spot of illegal touching would be a TD, but under the definition of TD this is not covered. Even though it's not there my only option would be to rule this as a TD for team B and hope like hell I have a microphone to explain this rather bizarre (and hopefully) correct ruling.

After further looking, I cannot find and concrete rules support for TD or safety in rule 8. If you cannot either, what do you have?? The answer to that question is the one that I have been thinking as being very "advantageous" to R all along if an immediate TD was not an option.

My ruling above did not inlcude that R can also take the ball where it becomes dead at the K-6. This would be more advantagoues, MJT you are correct. The more I've thought about this play today, I just do not know if we can award TD or Safety as I don't think there is rule support for either.

WOW - what a great case play! I'd never thought of anything like this before... :eek:

So, first my reaction without looking at a book (NFHS rules):
I'm curious if the definition of first touching requires a touch in the field of play. I'm thinking not, so we have first touching by A in their own end zone. (If there is such a requirement, this one's easy: A 1/10 @ A6.)

I'm thinking there's no way this can be a touchdown - that (with one exception, which this isn't) requires possession of a live ball in the opponents' end zone. I also don't believe that this is a safety - first touching is not a foul, and the ball was not declared dead in the end zone.

In theory, B has the right to take possession at the spot of first touching. But I'm pretty sure there's a rule that says the ball cannot start a play in the EZ, and some sort of provision for moving it out if for some reason it would. So my ruling on the field would be: B 1/G @ A 0.1 (i.e. just outside of the EZ).

Now to the book...
... where we have (surprise!) a conflict. :rolleyes: 2-12 says first touching must be in the field of play. 6-1-6 has no such requirement. Again, if 2-12 is correct, this is easy: there is no first touching, and A gets the ball. If you go with 6-1-6, you've got some thinking to do...

I can't find any rule about not snapping the ball in the EZ. (I guess they thought they wouldn't need one. :D) So I suppose, if you rule first touching in the EZ, then B takes over inside of their own EZ. Technically, they need to snap the ball to score their TD, but I wouldn't bother with that. Seeing no other alternative, if we decided 6-1-6 was right, I'd award the TD. But I don't like it.

So, how do we decide which definition of first touching to use?

5-1-5e is the only other rule I saw that mentions first touching, and it's no help - all it says is that R is awarded a new series if K is the first to touch the ball "before it has gone 10 yards." I could certainly argue that the ball has gone 10 yards, and just as easily argue that this rule clearly means forward 10 yards.

Normally, I'd go with the definition that's in rule 2. But that result really doesn't seem right either. Team A has clearly screwed up in just about every way possible on this one; I see no reason to reward them with the ball. Therefore, I'm going to "rule in the spirit of fair play" and award team B a touchdown, unless someone gives me a really good reason to do otherwise.

history notes
 

Someone brought it up in rec.sport.officiating a few years ago.

In proceedings of the Fed football rules committee (back when they were first formulating rules separately from NCAA), there was discussion of renaming the "field of play" (which, when you think about it, has long been a misnomer in rugby, American, and Canadian football) as the "scrimmage zone", because it was the only place you could scrimmage the ball from. Rugby Union laws state that scrums, rucks, and mauls can take place only in the field of play. Canadian football specifically outlaws scrimmaging the ball from within 1 yard of either goal line, but that was a result of adoption of the 1 yard NZ.

Own? Must be a basketball ref writing.

There used to be a way in American & Canadian football to score (not be awarded, but for a player to actively score) a TD with a dead ball. If a team kicked the ball OOB behind their own goal line, R1 could take the ball out of bounds, as was their option with any other ball belonging to them OOB, walk it in from the sideline 5 to 15 yards, and touch it down. In that case, touching it down produced a touchdown. (If it was in the field of play, that would be their spot to scrimmage it from.)

However, if a team carried or threw the ball OOB on or behind their own goal line, that would produce a safety only, even if it was last down. (You'd think turning it over on downs would produce a similar walk-in TD for the other team, but noooo.)

Robert

Roamin, a better discussion on this question on the NF board. http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...c;f=9;t=002487

I'm gong to take a stab at this, the way I see it,
1] the muff by A in his own endzone is ignored; [first touching is only in field of play; field of play is area between the boundary lines and the goal lines, the EZ is not in field of play, so no first touching by A in EZ]
2] you worry about the muff by B, [I assume the muff by A in the EZ didn't cause the ball to return to the field of play as far as A's 20 so B's muff is prior to the free kick crossing the "free-kick line" where B muffed, wouldn't matter anyway];
3] A recovers following B's muff;

A's ball 1/10 at the 6

Not fun one to explain to B's coach, but then he probably wouldn't know definition of first touching anyway, right?

Wow. It may hinge on the meaning of the word "first" in Fed 6-1-5. It could mean "previously" (K's ball) or it could mean absolutely first (R's ball).

Heh. The "practical" answer someone might give in rec.sport.officiating would be, "I heard a whistle while the ball was in the air...." ;-)

Robert

The "spirit of fair play" supports awarding a touchdown?!?!?!?!? There is only one time I can think of when a TD should be awarded as a result of a foul (and in this case we do not even have a foul but rather a VIOLATION).

I tend to agree with this ruling on the play (that A get's the ball 1/10 at the 6) because there is no rules support for a "first touching in A's end zone." While it may not seem "fair" to Team B well, .... Perhaps the "first touching" language should include first touching in A's end zone?

To add a further wrinkle, let's assume Team A picked up the ball in their end zone and punted it again (while the kicker is still in the end zone). Then what do you have?

The first thought might be that you have an illegal kick. However this is a free kick and since K possessing a free kick causes the ball to become dead it would result in a safety. If you wanted to be difficult you might then flag them for kicking a ball after it becomes dead but you'd have to be there to call that one.

Even though the touching in the end zone may not be "FIRST TOUCHING" per rule 2-12, K's contact with the ball in the endzone still meets the definition of "touching" in rule 2-43 and is done prior to R's touching the ball. So if K touches the ball before R, R's touching is ignored (6-1-5) and the ball would then belong to R at the 6.

I agree with Warren, once K picks up the ball in the endzone, the ball becomes dead and it would be a saftey per 6-1-5.

REPLY: Why would R's touching be ignored? R was neither blocked into the ball nor was the ball muffed or batted into him. He just went after a loose ball and muffed it. He can't be absolved of that touch.

I think so. A touched their own kick in their own EZ; B should be allowed to take possession at that spot - all I'm doing is not making them go through the farce of snapping the ball five yards away from the end line, when all we'd do is blow the whistle for the score as soon as they snapped it.

I'm not saying my solution is definitively right - as nearly as I can tell, there isn't a right answer for this play. Jim and Kirby said they'd go with B 1/10 @ A6, and I'm certainly not going to criticize. golfdesigner and kentref said they thought A 1/10 @ A6 was correct - I feel that's a really lousy break for R, but of the options discussed, it's the easiest to justify by the rules.

R's touching is "ignored" in that it has no effect on the play. K can only recover the ball before it goes beyond R's fee kick line if it is touched first by any receiver. Since K already had touched the ball in the endzone, R's touching is not first and therefore, doesn't have any consequences. K is not entitled to retain the ball.

REPLY: OK...now I see what you're saying. You're looking at the sentence that says, "The kickers may recover the ball before it goes beyond R's free kick line if it is touched first by any receiver." I read the use of the word "first" here to mean "prior to" rather "before any touching by K." So I don't necessarily agree, but I have no idea what we should do with this.

That has been my point all along. I guess I was not succinct enough. Better discussion about it on the NF board. http://www.nfhs.org/cgi-bin/ultimate...c;f=9;t=002487

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

[Assumption] A safety was scored, and the team kicking off committed a dead ball foul after the score and before the KO. In our game, A's KO is from the 35, and the 20 after a DBPF.[/Assumption]

There are two fouls on the play:

1. A1 touching the ball is a flag for touching the ball before it went 10 yards. 5-2-3, option 1.
2. A3 recovering is also a flag for the recovery after illegal touching. 5-2-3, option 2.

Penalties:

1. Back 5 yards and re-kick, or give A the ball, 1D/10 @ A-6.
2. Back 5 yards and re-kick, or give A the ball, 1D/10 @ A-6, or B 1D/G @ A-6.

B will decline the illegal touching and accept the recovery after the illegal touching.

Thanks BobM for an excellent, thought-provoking thread!

I can see MJT's point about 6-1-6 and it just seems that the Fed could fix the mess by removing the "in the field of play" phrase in the "first touching" definition. It would also then follow that a first touching by K in their own end zone could result in a TD for R unless the Fed chose to define that situation as a safety and, IMO, that would be a more appropriate ruling. It also would then be more consistent with 6-1-5 where the ball becomes dead once a kicker recovers a free kick.

I posed a variation to the initial question - where K, instead of muffing the ball out of the end zone, picks up the ball and punts it again - from the end zone. In a scrimmage kick situation this (2nd punt) is clearly covered by existing caseplay rulings. In a free kick situation there appears to be no prohibition against a second kick. However, it's likely that one/more K players will be beyond K's original free kick line at the time of the 2nd punt. If that is the case would you then blow the play dead (i.e. would you have a dead ball encroachment foul on K - even though the ball is live)?

Kentref, I'm not an official of any level in the US and I don't really know all the different rules there.
But from your second punt description all I could think of was this:

you should ignore a inadverted touching of a free kicked ball from K before it travels 10 yeards.
That's not the case in this second punt situation. For a punt to happen, someone on the K team must grant possession of the ball. And while you ignore an inadverted touch of a ball, you rule a foul for recovering a free kick before it travels 10 yards if no R team player has touched it before.

So in this second punt scenario I'd rule foul in the EZ and safety for R team.

There is most definitely a prohibition against a second kick during a free kick. For there to be a legal kick the ball must be controlled by either the kicker or holder. On a free kick, the ball becomes dead when K possesses it. Thus the ball is dead prior to any second free kick. If R possessed the ball first and then fumbled it, K may then attempt a free kick but in that situation it is obviously an illegal kick unless the holder had his knee on the ground.

So let's just say there will never be two free kicks in one play.

You cannot have a DB encroachment foul after the ball has become live. You cannot have an encroachment at all after the ball is live, by definition.

Where are you finding a case play concerning a second free or scrimmage kick attempted, except for a return kick?

Warren, why does the ball have to be dead for a free kick? I'm not saying it is not normally, but I don't see where it says it is? My problem with this play, and why it is an IK, is that if a punt is used for a FK following a safety, it must be kicked within one step behind K's FKLine.

In this second free kick play, K started the play with a free kick. Therefore, any time after that when K regains possession, the ball will become dead immediately (6-1-5) - therefore, no second free kick would be possible. In this case, it would be a saftey since K's kick supplied the force (8-5-3).

Finally, if K dropped the ball and messed up the free kick and lost possession without kicking it origionally, he still couldn't kick it out of the endzone. Once designated, K must free kick from a specific yard line (6-1-2).

DUH! Good catch Jim!!

This is an amazing posting. It is making me think about how I, as a white hat would announce to a crowd and explain to a coach what was going on. But, I would like to go back to MJT's last posting about the DB encroachment being taken off the board once the play was started. How about this one:
Since the crew let a play get off that (clearly?) shouldn't have, a rule was misapplied...so put the time back on the clock---ignore the play that resulted and restart the way it should have. That ofcourse if the flag is on the field. Thoughts???

This coming from Mr. Definition??

2-23-3: “A free kick is any legal kick which puts the ball in play to start a free-kick down.”