NF Fair Catch
 

Ok it's 9:30am and it's already been a long day so bear with me please...

In NF, where is the rule that states that a reciever who gives a valid FC signal cannot be blocked or tackled? I'm familiar with 6-5-6 but where's the rule that distinguishes between a receiver that has caught the ball without a signal and is immediately tackled and one that has given a valid FC?


thanks

2-9-1 A fair catch is a catch by a receiver of a free kick in or beyond the neutral zone to the receiver's goal line, or of a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone to the receiver's goal line, after a valid signal, under conditions in which the receiver forfeits the right to advance the ball in return for protection from being blocked or tackled by an opponent.

ok so that's the definition...but where is the actual rule that states the foul and associated penalty if the receiver ends up not being protected and is blocked/tackled?

In other words, Rule 2 tells us what a clip is, but it's Rule 9 that tells us what happens if it's done illegally...

9-4-3b

A fair catch makes the ball clearly dead. This is a dead-ball personal foul 15 yards from the succeeding spot and has the same rule reference as, for example, a late hit out of bounds.

As a side note, don't let your B fall into the logic of trying to protect with his whistle a player who has made a fair catch. If the player is hit after he makes a fair catch, it is a foul regardless of how fast the official blew the whistle.

OK I'll buy that from a rules standpoint...

so let's change this to philosophy. We've all had those last minute, yet valid, FC signals right before the receiver catches the ball and possibly gets hit.

Do you give the receiver protection if he signals a split second before he catches the ball and the kicking team can't "pull up" or is the answer that we just need to be reasonable such as when ruling on roughing the passer...

On another note, assuming no FC signal is given, do you penalize K1 under 6-5-6 if he hits the receiver just after he catches the ball...the classic bang-bang play. Assume he holds onto the ball but was realistically hit while still technically in a defenseless position...

This is the reason you can call a FC to prevent from being hit. So the answer is a ringing yes a returner can be hit after they have had an opportunity to catch the ball.

Peace

ok so forget 6-5-6 because all bets are off with regards to this rule when R touches the kick/ball which we know he has.

So then let's look at the potential for a personal foul. I would venture to say that if it's a good clean solid legal hit, we're good. Anything that borders on helmet-to-helmet or other illegal contact is going to be a PF.

The point is that even though it's legal per the letter, it's still the most defenseless position on the field, evne more so than a passer in my opinion. Therefore we need to protect him to some extent even if he doesn't signal for FC. In other words, if K comes in headhunting, they're not going to get much latitude from me

DJ,

It is not illegal to hit them just because they are vulnerable. If a player times it right and hits a PR after a catch of a punt, then that is legal. We all know that leading with your head is illegal and other hits might be illegal, but how vulnerable they are is not the issue. If the PR does not want to get hit, do not catch the ball or call for a fair catch and you will guarantee you will be given some protection.

Peace

I can see where you're going with this and I'll have to give some more thought

but let's go back to the point about when a PR calls for a valid FC right at the last second before being contacted?

If the contact is slight and the signal was closer to invalid than valid, I will give K some leeway here. We had one of these in our V game last week. Our B did not throw the flag, but immedately talked to both players (R about giving a stronger signal, and K about being aware of a fair catch signal).

I thought it was a good call at the time of the play, then I saw the play on the game film and was convinced it was the correct no-call. It looks ugly, but it is one of those things where no advantage is really gained.

With all that said, you have to see these plays to rule on them and there is no set-in-stone way to approach these plays without seeing everything.