Proper NFHS enforcement of this penalty?

[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.

[Huskerblue]

It sure doesn't seem right, but by the rules that's what we have to do. Better have a spare pair of knickers because K's coach is going to chew the A$$ out of the pair you are wearing.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by Huskerblue

It sure doesn't seem right, but by the rules that's what we have to do. Better have a spare pair of knickers because K's coach is going to chew the A$$ out of the pair you are wearing.

In a situation like this, if you know them well, the two most powerful words you have to say to an angry coach is, "by rule." Have a great year Cory!

[wisref2]

Warrenkicker - thanks, poor choice of words on my part. What I should have said is that force is not a factor on kicks, or as MJT said - a kick is a kick is a kick. Discussions like this are great to get the cobwebs out of the football part of the brain!