Proper NFHS enforcement of this penalty?
 

What is the proper NFHS enforcement for this case?

Kickoff from K's 40 comes to rest at R's 5 yard line and R1 intentionally kicks the ball through R's end zone. If the penalty for the illegal kick is accepted, what is the resulting penalty enforcement / from where is the ball put into play?

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

Since kicking the ball is never illegal, we have a safety touch for Team K. [3-2-3]

I think this question has found its way to all three boards now. :eek: It is a loose ball play cuz the foul was during the kick, (before possession - which would then start a running play), so it has a previous spot enforcement. If accepted, K will rekick from R's 45 yard line. If the penalty is declined, you'd have a touchback.

The US rule interests me because for the most part, our rules are the same. There are some differences in penalty application, but this case is totally different.

But you always have the ability for the kicking team to score on any kick right? That is way different than the way we do it. But then again, it wouldn't be Canadian football if we all used the same rules. Heck, I'd be flagging your teams all the time for too many guys on the field. And what's with that 55 yard line? :eek:

Yup. I've done championships that have been won on a kicking play to score the 1 point. Makes it exciting.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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? :confused:

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.

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!