Scrimmage Kick

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

CANADIAN RULING:

R's muff has no impact on our game. K still needs to gain yards. Result: R 1D/10 @ K-13.

Interesting! When you informed me they'd eliminated the kick clause from the continuity-of-downs provision, I'd assumed they'd make an exception for the case where R touched the ball beyond the LOS.

What if R1 batted the ball from where it came down to a teammate as an onside pass attempt and K recovered, still without yards gained?

Robert

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Interesting! When you informed me they'd eliminated the kick clause from the continuity-of-downs provision, I'd assumed they'd make an exception for the case where R touched the ball beyond the LOS.

What if R1 batted the ball from where it came down to a teammate as an onside pass attempt and K recovered, still without yards gained?

Robert

Oh sure, come up with a dandy why don't ya? Possession is something that I think can be misinterpreted incorrectly up here. If R1 bats the ball backwards, in a purposeful act, I think possession is established, and therefore the continuity of downs is broken. If R1 causes the ball to go backwards as a result of being a klutz and K recovers, yards still need to be gained. I believe that intent is the key.