Question on Free Kick

[DesertZebra]

Originally Posted by Welpe

No, that is legal. There is not requirement for the ball to be on a tee for it to be legally kicked so the receiving team needs to be alert for a kick once the RFP is blown.

Nope, it is USC - Intent to deceive. Much like the "Wrong ball, coach" play. Just because the RFP has blown doesn't mean all bets are off for deception. If the tee is being used as a decoy, intent to deceive is the call.

[ajmc]

I can't find any reference to the requirement of a kicking tee in NF 6.1 (Free Kicks). Nor is there any suggestion regarding a kicking tee in NF: 2.24.3, which defines a "Free Kick".

NF:2.24.5 describing a "kickoff" limits the type of kick to be used as either a "drop kick" or a "place kick".

NF:2.24.7, defines "a place kick" is a legal kick made while the ball is in a fixed position on the ground or on a kicking tee".

Just an observation, but there seems to be WAY TOO MANY attempts to blow things up into USC under some exaggerated concept of "Intent to Deceive". Football is all about deception, and the counter ability of being smart enough to avoid being deceived by gimmicks.

[DesertZebra]

2008 Rule Change, rule 9-9-4...

Rule 9-9-4 No player shall use a kicking tee in violation of Rule 1-3-4.
Rule 1-3-4 simply states that the tee can only elevate the lowest point of the ball no more than 2 inches above the ground.

Since the tee is not being used to elevate the ball, it's not being used in accordance to the rules, and should not be out on the field.
But I think the intent of those rules is to put an end to using tees improperly, but not for the case at hand. So...

Rule 1-1-6 A referee has authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship, on any situation not specifically covered in the rules.

[Welpe]

What was changed this year is the penalty for using an illegal tee. Note the rule says that a tee can only elevate a ball no more than 2 inches off the ground. In other words, a tee that elevates the lowest point of the ball more than 2 inches above the ground is illegal.

Per the definition of a legal kick, a tee is not required and there is nothing in the rules that specifies how the ball is placed on the tee. There are teams that put the ball sideways on a tee for a kick off. That is perfectly legal, so is kicking it directly off of the ground, or having it resting on the tee while also on the ground (for a free kick anyways).

Free kicks and what constitutes a legal kick are specifically covered in the rules, so I do not believe you have any basis for using 1-1-6 in ruling this USC.

[DesertZebra]

I beg to differ. Using a tee as a decoy is not covered in the rules, hence 1-1-6.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by DesertZebra

2008 Rule Change, rule 9-9-4...

Rule 9-9-4 No player shall use a kicking tee in violation of Rule 1-3-4.
Rule 1-3-4 simply states that the tee can only elevate the lowest point of the ball no more than 2 inches above the ground.

Since the tee is not being used to elevate the ball, it's not being used in accordance to the rules, and should not be out on the field.

C'm'on, 1-3-4 just puts a ceiling, not a floor, on how high the tee can raise the ball off the ground; otherwise a rugby-style ring tee, which leaves the bottom of the ball touching the ground, would be illegal.

Meanwhile, AFAIK Fed has not extended to free kicks the prohibition on playing the ball while using verbal signals indicating not being ready.

But if anyone can put a kicking tee out there without using it, why couldn't team R also throw their kicking tee out there? And maybe a few tackling dummies, and play like Bobby Riggs used to play handicap tennis (with obstacles on his side of the net)?

Robert

[ajmc]

I'm not sure which code you are referring to, DesertZebra, but the notion that "Using a tee as a decoy is not covered in the rules, hence 1-1-6." is simply ridiculous.

[DesertZebra]

So making a travesty of the game by resorting to acting, with props, is okay then? Glad I'm not in your association.

I'm all for deception, as long as it's done in a gentleman's manner. Playing tricks on the other team is not football, it's chickensh..

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by DesertZebra

I beg to differ. Using a tee as a decoy is not covered in the rules, hence 1-1-6.

I would submit that the Rule 2 definition of a rule says that this act is legal, even as a decoy.

A rule sometimes states what a player may do, but if there is no such statement for a given act (such as faking a kick), it is assumed that he may do what is not prohibited.

The rules define what a legal tee is and how a legal free kick is made. The rules do not say that a kick must be made from a tee or that the tee may not be present on the field if it is not used, therefore this play is legal.

You wouldn't flag a team for running a fake field goal and having a tee on the field, would you? The tee was just as much of a prop in this situation as a fake field goal.

Rule 1-1-6 is intended to be used in the bizarre situations where there truly is no rule support at all. Such as a dog running onto the field during a play and stealing the football. There is plenty of rules coverage for kicks, legal and illegal equipment so I believe it is a true stretch to say there is no rule coverage for this play.

Originally Posted by DesertZebra

So making a travesty of the game by resorting to acting, with props, is okay then? Glad I'm not in your association.

I'm all for deception, as long as it's done in a gentleman's manner. Playing tricks on the other team is not football, it's chickensh..

Football is all about deception and trickery. Hard snap counts, fake field goals, fake punts, free kicking directly from a huddle, going on first sound, going on 2, Dan Marino's fake spike and touch down pass...all of these are deceptive. So was the fumblerooski and when the Federation decided that it was too deceptive, it was specifically made illegal.

Teams have been free kicking the ball directly off of the ground for years and the Fed has not seen fit to specifically outlaw this act yet. I cannot see calling this USC. That is not within the spirit of the rules.

[JamesBond]

Originally Posted by DesertZebra

Nope, it is USC - Intent to deceive. Much like the "Wrong ball, coach" play. Just because the RFP has blown doesn't mean all bets are off for deception. If the tee is being used as a decoy, intent to deceive is the call.

Can someone give me a rule reference for "intent to deceive". I can't find the passage for that.
007