Proper NFHS enforcement of this penalty?

[jontheref]

I agree that this is a lose ball play and subsequently if you accept the penalty you are rekicking from the 45. However, the touchback I need to think about. If the ball is at rest...is this not a new force and therefore a safety and a new set of rules? What am I missing...or am I reading something into this that I shouldnt be.

[wisref2]

Yeah, that new force question confuses it a little. Remember, a new force cannot be applied to a kick. So even though the ball is at rest, the kick has not ended (doesn't end until the ball is possessed or becomes dead). So, when the ball goes into the endzone, it is a kick into the endzone - touchback. I don't feel 100% comfortable with that explanation, but it's the one I've been able to muster up after some research and discussions.

[Warrenkicker]

Careful there wisref2. We do have a new force in this play, 2-13-1. We are just allowed to ignore the new force, 2-13-4a.

2-13 FORCE
ART. 1 Force is the result of energy exerted by a player which provides movement of the ball. The term force is used only in connection with the goal line and in only one direction, i.e., from the field of play into the end zone. Initial force results from a carry, fumble, kick, pass or snap. After a backward pass, fumble or kick has been grounded, a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff.
ART. 2 Responsibility for forcing the ball from the field of play across a goal line is attributed to the player who carries, snaps, passes, fumbles or kicks the ball, unless a new force is applied to either a backward pass, kick or fumble that has been grounded.
ART. 3 The muffing or batting of a pass, kick or fumble in flight is not considered a new force.
ART. 4 Force is not a factor:
a. On kicks going into R’s end zone, since these kicks are always a touchback regardless of who supplied the force.
b. When a backward pass or fumble is declared dead in the end zone of the opponent of the player who passed or fumbled, with no player possession.

[wisref2]

Warrenkicker - that's what I keep saying, but others disagree. I cite article 1 and they cite article 4.

[Warrenkicker]

My post was in response to your post that there "can't be a new force applied to a kick." There is a new force on this play. R supplied the force that put the ball in the end zone. However we don't care who put it there. We only care that it got there. A kick entering R's end zone is always a touchback.

[Huskerblue]

Since the ball was at rest, the force applied to the ball was R's responisibility. I agree with the enforcement of the penalty for illegal kicking, but if the penalty is declined, how can that not be a Safety?

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Huskerblue

Since the ball was at rest, the force applied to the ball was R's responisibility. I agree with the enforcement of the penalty for illegal kicking, but if the penalty is declined, how can that not be a Safety?

Remember Cory, a kick, is a kick, is a kick, is a kick. That will keep you out of trouble in a situation like this. That, and the rule "any free or scrimmage kick breaking the plane or R's GL is always a TB unless R chooses a spot of first touching" covers why you would not have a safety.