Illegal Touching, Fumble on punt

[bossman72]

K punts from their 20. The punt hits the ground and the ball hits K37's leg at the 50 (illegal touching violation). The ball then rolls forward and R17 picks up the ball and advances it. During his run, he fumbles and K recovers.


R can get the ball back at the spot of illegal touching in this situation even though they lost the ball, correct?

NCAA ruling please but also note if there is a difference in NFHS.

[TXMike]

NCAA Yes Unless there is an accepted penalty on the play, B can play the ball after A's illegal touch without fear of ending up without the ball

[reff4e]

Under Fed rules, if R touches the ball and then commits a foul, they lose the right to take the ball at the first touching spot regardless of whether foul is accepted or declined. Don't know if the same applies in NCAA or not.

[TXMike]

Does not apply in NCAA unless the penalty is accepted.

[BoBo]

First Touching i believe would be the term we want to use instead of illegal touching

[TXMike]

That depends on which rulebook "we" are using. NCAA calls it illegal touching

[logjam]

NF its "first touching" which is a beanbag spot. R has the option of taking the ball at the spot of first touching or taking the result of the play. If R captain wants to stay in good graces with his coach, he will take the first option.

[Forksref]

First touching is not a foul. Just beanbag it and go on with the play.

[ljudge]

NCAA allows for a screwy situation on this rule...

Team A punts the ball from their own 45 and a team A member illegally touches the kick at B's 20. Team B recovers the ball at team B's 15 yard line and advances to his own 30 before he fumbles the ball which is recovered by team A who advances for a TD.

Situation #1: Team B fouls the runner by an inadvertent facemask.

Ruling: The foul is automatically declined (because of the TD) so therefore you revert to the spot of illegal touching.

Situation #2: Team B fouls the runner by with a personal foul version of a facemask.

Ruling: The score stands and illegal touching ignored.

[MJT]

Originally Posted by ljudge

NCAA allows for a screwy situation on this rule...

Team A punts the ball from their own 45 and a team A member illegally touches the kick at B's 20. Team B recovers the ball at team B's 15 yard line and advances to his own 30 before he fumbles the ball which is recovered by team A who advances for a TD.

Situation #1: Team B fouls the runner by an inadvertent facemask.

Ruling: The foul is automatically declined (because of the TD) so therefore you revert to the spot of illegal touching.

Situation #2: Team B fouls the runner by with a personal foul version of a facemask.

Ruling: The score stands and illegal touching ignored.

ljudge, NCAA or NF rules, why couldn't A decline the foul and take the TD? They don't "have" to take the ball at the spot of illegal/first touching, it is an option.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by MJT

ljudge, NCAA or NF rules, why couldn't A decline the foul and take the TD? They don't "have" to take the ball at the spot of illegal/first touching, it is an option.

It's because their player made the illegal touch. But I agree that the personal foul's leading to the TD is a screwy result.

It's too bad the rules don't provide for ways to kill the play to prevent futile efforts and possible injury. Like if when A got possession following their illegal touch, the ball would become dead. That is what happens if it it's during the kick, but interpose a possession by R and a nutty thing like this can happen.

Same if an ineligible receiver catches a pass. Play continues, but it's futile, and personal fouls & injuries can occur during the interval of futility. And it may be one of those situations where the player catching the ball might've had a good reason to, like he wasn't sure it was a forward pass or whether touching by B occurred.

Robert

[bossman72]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

It's because their player made the illegal touch. But I agree that the personal foul's leading to the TD is a screwy result.

It's too bad the rules don't provide for ways to kill the play to prevent futile efforts and possible injury. Like if when A got possession following their illegal touch, the ball would become dead. That is what happens if it it's during the kick, but interpose a possession by R and a nutty thing like this can happen.

Same if an ineligible receiver catches a pass. Play continues, but it's futile, and personal fouls & injuries can occur during the interval of futility. And it may be one of those situations where the player catching the ball might've had a good reason to, like he wasn't sure it was a forward pass or whether touching by B occurred.

Robert

But in those "futile" intervals you described, that team could turn the ball over again, so that would put the other team at a disadvantage if you killed it.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bossman72

But in those "futile" intervals you described, that team could turn the ball over again, so that would put the other team at a disadvantage if you killed it.

The situations I describe as "futile" are all of a kind where, if a player in possession of the ball knew what was going on, the smart thing to do would be to take a knee. Putting the other team at a "disadvantage" by the fact of the player's not knowing that and possibly losing possession just isn't my idea of worthy play. It's like the situation that's been pointed out here whereby in Fed you can get a better enforcement spot on some running plays by fumbling the ball after an opponent's foul if you realize that's what's happened.

Now you may ask, what's the difference between those situations and that of not being able to spot an open receiver? The difference is that spotting receivers is a skill, while knowing whether to take a knee or fumble is not a skill.

There are other situations in which futile play is prevented. AFAIK none of the codes allow play to proceed if team A tries to play the ball before the ball is RFP. You might say, why not let them play -- team B might gain an advantage. It doesn't even meet my description of "futile" above, because if play were allowed to proceed subject to penalty and count as a down if declined, taking a knee would usually be a bad idea.

Robert