Translation issues
 

Hello, everybody,

as some might remember, I'm from Brazil and I'm in the process of translating the NCAA rules to portuguese for use in the country.
Right now I'm on the rule 6 and I just found an issue that I'd like to clarify so I don't make the wrong interpretation.

Rule 6-1-3-a-3 says

a. No Team A player may touch a free-kicked ball until after:

3. It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond Team B's restraining line.

I understand that has no effect over an onside kick try since Team A becomes eligible to receive the kick after it has crossed Team B's restraining line. But Rule 6-1-2-g says

No Team A player may block an opponent until Team A is eligible to touch a free-kicked ball.

Does that really means that on an onside kick try, Team A players have to wait for the ball to cross the line so they can block Team B and attempt a recovery of the kick?


I'll be posting more questions as I have them on the translation process.
Thanks for the help

Remember that there's another way for team A to become eligible to touch the free kicked ball: first touching of the ball by B, regardless of where.

yes, but that still doesn't clear what I thought was the rule.
I thought that once the ball touched the ground (right after the kick) every player would be eligible to touch the ball and therefore Team A would be able to block Team B.

I know... the ball touching the ground wouldn't make Team A eligible to recover the kick, but I thought it would at least allow them to block Team B.

Am I wrong on this?

although I have had an insight while translating the Fair Catch rules, I'd still love for someone to clarify my doubts on my previous posts.

But I have now realized that the tactics of free kicking the ball into the ground so it can bunce up in the air on onside kicks might have to do with taking away the option of a Team B fair catch

The eligibility of a team A player to touch or recover the free kick has nothing to do with blocking an opponent from getting to the ball.

Team A players could block B players and interfere with their getting the ball until it has gone 10 yds. wherein the A players could then recover it. (after it has touched the ground AND gone 10 yds.)

Yes it does. If you are working 7 man, you should each have a man or two that you are focusing on to make sure they don't get blocked early.

Rule reference?

The rules are saying otherwise. That's where my doubt is. Rule 6-1-2-g says no Team A player may block an oponent until Team A is eligible to touch the ball.
And rule 6-1-3-a says Team A becomes eligible when Team B touches the ball; the ball breaks the plan and remains beyound Team B restraining line or; the ball touches the any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond Team B restraining line.

Which, in my understanding, means Team A can't block Team B until the ball travels 10 yards.

My first thought, when I read Rule 6-1-3-a, was that maybe it was supposed to read like this:
The ball touches any player, the ground or an official. Or touches anything beyond 10 yeard. But that's not the case because Team A doesn't become eligible if a Team A player touches the ball before it travels 10 yards.
Then I came to the conclusion that Team A can't block Team B on an onside kick until the ball travels 10 yards

I don't know where you are getting your rule citations because there is no 6-1-3a or 6-1-2g.

If you look at 6-5-6, it starts out by saying "While any free kick is in FLIGHT in or beyond the neutral zone..., K shall not: a. Touch the ball or R unless blocked into the ball or R, or to ward off a blocker; or b. Obstruct R's path to the ball. (This is the section on kick catching interference.)

Thus, if the ball is kicked on the ground, these restrictions do not apply and K players can block R players.

;)

NCAA Rulebook I downloaded from NCAA.org

The rule references are correct for NCAA.

The only way Team A would be eligible to block Team B before the ball goes 10 yards is if Team B comes forward and touches the ball in that first 10 yards. By doing that they "give permission" to Team A to block them.

Great to hear you are continuing the move to NCAA rules from those NFL ones.

One thing I'd have to ask is what dvasques needs to do here. Is your job to translate the NCAA football rule book so you can present it as, "Here is the authentic current NCAA football rule book translated into Portugese."? Or are you operating as a "rules committee of 1", and just doing your own research? That is, do you have to "sell" the product to someone as, "Here is what has been formulated and tested by a large organiz'n for football?" Because if not, if you have nobody to answer to, why not just think it thru (preferably, but not necessarily, in consultation with others) and decide what makes sense for you, without regard to exactly what the existing rule book says?

For 80 years in American football, team B/R has been given opportunity to catch the free kicked ball, so that opp'ty is not to be interfered with. The different codes have slightly different criteria as to when that opportunity exists. In Canadian football there is no such opp'ty, but for over 50 years the receiving team but not the kicking team at a kickoff has been allowed to block before possession of the ball is gained. Why not just use that knowledge and formulate your own criteria?

Robert in the Bronx

Just for the record, there does not appear to be any restriction againsts K blocking R before a grounded free kick has traveled past R's free kick line under the NFHS code.

If any free kick is touched by K, before it travels past the R free kick line, it is "first touching" and R will have the option to select possession at that point. (unless R touches the kick and thereafter during the down commits a foul, or if the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down. NF: 6.1.6)

6-1-2-h & all of 6-1-3a thru c.

What am I missing here?

Yes it really does mean that!!

Of course if Team B touch it before 10yds then Team A can recover and also can now legally block

It was a Rule change made in the early 1990's(??) due to one College teams onside kick play. I believe it was Hawaii(??) who had an onside kick play where the kicker would kick the ball and as it bobbled forward the other 10 Team A guys would surround it blocking Team B out of the way until it had gone 10yds when the kicker would fall on it. Usually only a handful of Team B players up front so it was 10 against 2 or 3 and the play was nearly always succesful. This Rule change made that tactic illegal. I'm sure I recall a BigTen official coming over to the UK to our Annual British Clinic back then and explaining the reasoning behind this Rule change.

I actually had this foul happen to my crew yesterday over here in the UK in a British College game and today I read a forum post about it, how wierd is that?
Definitely a Twilight Zone moment ( http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NzlG28B-R8Y )


Judging by the Rules references that Forksref is giving, he is looking at the Fed rulebook, so I guess he missed that dvasques is talking about NCAA Rules.

OK, but I hope you understand that none of that has anything to do with what I was asking dvasques.

And now, a doubt on Rule 7
 

NCAA book, Rule 7-3-4 says:

No eligible offensive receiver who goes out of bounds during a down shall touch a legal forward pass in the field of play or end zones or while airborne until it has been touched by an oponent or official

And Rule 7-3-5 says:

When a Team B player or an official touches a legal forward pass, all players become eligible


Now, I'm coming from NFL rules and, unless I'm mistaken, a Team A eligible player who's gone out of bounds would regain his eligibility once either an official, Team B player or another Team A eligible player touched the ball.

Not like this in the NCAA?

Just for the record, what I'm trying to do here in Brasil is implement the rules that are used by IFAF. I've been told by their Head of Officiating that their rules is the NCAA with a few changes. So the first thing I'm doing is translating the NCAA rules first. Then I'll make the IFAF changes.
And later, we will make some more changes for our beach football (that has no pads and no drawns line on the ground). TXMike knows what I'm talking about...

And thanks everyone for the responses. Really helpfull.

Why not obtain IFAF's rules in some language and translate that? Or does IFAF not have their own complete written set of rules in any language, just incorporating NCAA by reference?

Well, certainly one of the lines does not need to be drawn...but it keeps moving!

Robert in the Bronx

I've asked for the IFAF book but there is none yet. So they use NCAA incorporated by reference.

Robert, it is a lot more complicated then you think to have a scrimmage line marked down at beach games here...

You have it right.. that team-A player can now touch the ball.

yes, but another Team A eligible player touching the ball does not make every player eligible, right?

Correct. It has to be a Team B player or an official.

We are currently choosing our guys from the UK for the IFAF Pool (I'm on the Selection Committee) and notice that Brazil is on the list in the Email about it. So I can understand that you have an impetus to get changed over to NCAA Rules.
Don't know the Head of IFAF Officiating myself, but I know his Assistants well. I've worked in EFAF with Einar and I've worked three games with Yoshiki who was at World Cup 99 in Sicily with me.

I thought Einar was the heard of officiating for IFAF...

We have two names to throw into IFAF pool and mine is one of them. But I have no idea of what's going to happen after that. Thing is, down in south america there's not many games we could send someone form brazil to officiate and therefore, it's hard to get the experience outside the counrty.

But we'll keep working. I was already on the process of this translation before the email about the IFAF pool but surely it has sped up the process for me

But I meant one of the boundaries is easy to call because you see the splash when the player steps beyond it.

oh yes.. but still, sometimes it's hard to define if the boudaries are straight or if they've moved a little...
It's not easy to have a real game on the sand...

Hi dvasques

Can these people not get you a current Portugese translation? It says it is run by the Spanish association, but to play with Portugese teams, you would think they would have it also translated.

LNFA 2 - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Maybe ot would save you a lot of work... Or the Spanish one (not knowing the languages, I don't know how different they are).

As for your questions:
I agree, A can only block after they are elligible to touch the ball, Two_Flakes summed it up nicely.
I agree, the A player OOB is only made elligible after it touches a B player or official. Touched by an A player does not change the status.


Good luck!

So-- if R get blocked into the ball, by K, before it goes 10 yards (in NFHS) what is the correct call?

You might look at NF:6.1.5, that advises; "Any K player may recover the ball before it goes beyond R's free kick line if it is touched first by any receiver. Such touching in the neutral zone by R is ignored if it is caused by K pushing or blocking R into contact with the ball or if K muffs the ball into contact with R."

Thanks, Did not have my books but that got me to thinking. And as usual, I think too much.

A new doubt, now on Rule 8
 

Rule 8-5-2 states:

After a safety is scored, the ball belongs to the defending team at it's own 20-yard line, and that team shall put the ball in play on or between the inbound lines by a free kick that may be a punt, drop kick or place kick (Exception: Extra period and try rules).


ok... the safety os scored by the defending team. So shouldn't the offense be kicking the safety kick?

Also, a place kick? Just like a kickoff? Sure, there's nothing allowing a tee to be used on the text of the rule, but there is nothing forbidding it either.
And back in Rule 2 it says that safety kick is a free kick, and it says that a place kick on a free kick may be done with the use of a tee.

Is that right? You can use a tee for safety kicks?

this is an easier one that just occurred to me
 

Is that right that there is no tie in the NCAA? Not even during the regular season? There is always going to be extra periodS when the first 4 ends in a tie until someone wins?

also (and I'm starting to feel stupid)
 

is it not safety for offensive fouls that occur in their own endzone? Like offensive holding inside the offensive endzone???

Or am I missing something about penalty enforcement here?

What they mean in this Rule when they say "defending team" is the team defending the endzone where the safety was scored. They don't mean offense or defense.

Yes, the kick after a safety can be a free kick just like a kickoff with a tee. Which is what most teams will do. However they do have the option to punt or drop kick. Some teams have a great punter and a poor place kicker so will choose to punt instead. I've never seen a drop kick after a safety in 25 years, which means it will probably happen on my next game :D

Correct. However here in Europe, some Leagues do allow a tie and only use the tiebreaker in the playoffs. I worked the British Bowl weekend in 2008 and my game went to four overtimes!!

Yes it is a safety for these offensive fouls (Offensive F/Mask, Illegal Hands, Holding, Illegal Block, and P/Foul) .
Rules References:-
10-2-2-c-1(run ends beyond nz),
10-2-2-c-2(run ends behind nz),
10-2-2-d-4 (passes),
10-2-2-e-4 (scrimmage kicks)

and after the 3rd overtime, both teams must go for two after a touchdown.

new one, but my guess is problem with the text
 

Rule 10-2-2-d states that the basic spot of enforcement for pass plays is the previous spot EXCEPT
bla bla bla

2. Roughing-the-passer enforcement on a completed forward pass from the end of the last run when that run ends beyond the neutral zone and there is no change of team possession during the down.

My guess is that it should read like this

2. Roughing-the-passer enforcement on a completed forward pass IS from the end of the last run when that run ends beyond the neutral zone and there is no change of team possession during the down.

Did I get this right?

also
 

this may be just the late hours so forgive me if I sound stupid but

how is Rule 10-2-2-d Exception 4 an exception?

I mean, the text of it says

Enforcement penalties for facemask, (...) occuring behind the neutral zone by the offensive team from the previous spot.

Didn't d just say that the enforcement on pass plays is from the previous spot???

I think I should stop with the work for today and get some rest while waiting for some help...

If 10-2-2-d-4 was not there, then you would not award a safety for those listed fouls when they occured in Team A's EndZone. Instead you would enforce from the Previous spot.

The reason for exception 4 is the embedded exception to the exception, i.e. the part about awarding the safety, but I agree that when you first read it, it looks like it is repeating itself :D

Yes. :D

Ok... got it... although it's written all over the rules that whenever a foul is commited by the offense, behind Team A's goaline it is a safety.

But I got it. Thanks

Indeed, that same piece is repeated all over the Rule Book. It certainly is time for the book to have a major rewrite so that things like that only need to be written once. You must be tired of translating the same bit of English over and over again into Portuguese!

now on the ARs
 

7-1-3-XII
A30, lined up legally as a back, starts in motion legally. He then turns
so that he still is legally in motion but is facing his line of scrimmage
using a “side-step” motion. At the snap, A30 is bent slightly forward
at the waist and is either continuing his “side-step” motion or is
“marking time” in place. RULING: Legal.


What is "marking time"????

I would say that "Marking time" is an expression more used in America than England.

The English term would be "Running on the spot".

His legs are still going up and down, but he isn't actually moving anywhere.

Like when soldiers are marching on the parade ground and then they stop going forward, but their legs are still making the marching action.

I'm back
 

this time is not about the translation but just a doubt that popped in my head today.

So interlocking legs is forbidden, right? That works for scrimmage kick formation as well or you can interlock legs for a field goal try ou punt?

Rule 7-1-3-b-2
The player on each side of and next to the snapper may lock legs with the snapper, but any other lineman must have both feet outside the outside foot of the player next to him when the ball is snapped.

This Rule applies to all plays that starts with a snap, therefore it includes any scrimmage kick plays (punts, FG, PAT kick).

Even though the Rule applies to running or passing plays, it is most likely that it will be on a scrimmage kick play that the offense will break this Rule. By locking legs before the snap, they get an advantage to stop the defense getting through the gaps to block the kick.
Certainly in my officiating career, I have only ever seen this foul on a scrimmage kick play and maybe only 3 or 4 times in 20+ years.

So Referees and Umpires should start looking for it before the ball is snapped, so they are ready to drop their flag when the ball is snapped. It is a live ball foul. Remember not to flag it if it is the snapper and the guy on either side of him, they are allowed to lock legs.

Some well drilled teams will (after the snap) retreat into a blocking position so that players have their legs interlocked. That is not a foul. That is why you must see whether the legs are interlocked before the snap. You can't flag something you see 1 or 2 seconds after the snap.

Hope this helps....

I'm gonna pay more attention to that when I watch NCAA games on TV but I was sure I saw some interlocking before the snap on scrimmage kicks

but that helps a lot... thanks, flake

No worries dvasques, always happy to help. Helps keep me thinking about football ready for our season here in Britain which starts shortly.

When you get to thinking about mechanics, then get in touch. The manual that is used in Britain and nine other European countries and by EFAF for European international games is pretty good. It covers all size crews from 7 man down to 3 man and was once described by Referee magazine as "the most comprehensive amatuer football officiating manual we've ever seen".

where can I get one of those, Flake?
I downloaded one from BAFA website (I think) once and translated most of it. This one I got is very good but I still gotta get back into it to make sure I understand it fully so I can start teaching it down here

Hey dvasques,

I've sent you a Private Message about it.

Regards,
With_Two_Flakes

Another question
 

Now, we're on the ARs and I found this on AR 3-2-5-V

Late in the second or fourth quarter, the ball carrier goes out of
bounds. When the game clock is stopped it reads (a) 2:00 or (b) 1:59.
RULING: (a) The game clock starts when the ball is ready for play.
(b) The game clock starts on the snap.


Now, why is it that you don't consider the two minutes warning when the clock hits 2:00?

There is a difference between,
1) giving the "two minute warning" if there are no stadium clocks
2) when to start the clock when a runner goes out of bounds

What you have to remember is that pretty much every stadium in the USA (even a real small school) has a visible game clock, so "two minute warnings" almost never happen in the USA. It is likely that when the Rules Committee wrote that AR they were thinking 100% about the runner out of bounds and would not be thinking about "two minute warnings".

AR 3-2-5-V is all about the starting of the clock on a ball carrier / fumble / backward pass going out of bounds.

The rule (3-2-5-a-12 Exception) says start the clock on the snap within the last two minutes. By "within", they mean "less than" two minutes.

Therefore a time of 2:00 is not within (less than) the two minutes, but 1:59 is.




The time at which you would give the two minute warning is a different issue (see Rule 3-3-8-b). If there are no visible clocks (and I assume Brazil is in the same situation as Great Britain) then you will need to give a two minute warning. The purpose of this is to ensure the teams know how long is left since many teams will change their style of play when time is a factor (ie go into their two minute drill). Myself, I also remind them how many timeouts they have.

Now for the particular example they give in the AR you are talking about, then it might be that the two minute warning has not been given yet. So whether there is 2:00 or 1:59 left, you would give the "two minute warning" and 3-3-8-b-2 would over-rule 3-2-5-a-12 and you would start on the snap for both 2:00 or 1:59.

But it might be that the previous play (eg an incomplete pass) stopped the clock at 2:04 and you decided that was close enough to two minutes that you would give the "two minute warning".

Hope this makes sense, Daniel. But feel free to E-mail me if you want to discuss it further.

Regards,
Steve

thanks, flake, I thought 2:00 would be within two minutes

Anyway, NCAA switched to a 4 min. warning decades ago, and AFAIK never changed back.

The most recent NCAA Rule book I have immediately to hand is 2007 and it says 2 minute warning if no visible clocks.

I wonder when they switched back. I've seen so few games lately where official time wasn't visible, it never came up. Did Fed switch back to 2 mins. too?

Hello, everybody.

I´m working with dvasques with the translation and I have a doubt:

A.R. 7-3-3-I states:

At the snap, tight end A85 is on the line of scrimmage. Flanker A23 is two yards outside of A85 and is neither on his line of scrimmage nor in the backfield. RULING: A23 is in an illegal position and is an ineligible pass receiver. A85 is an eligible pass receiver since he is on the end of the line of scrimmage (Rules 2-21-2 and 2-27-4).

How is a player neither on the line of scrimmage nor in the backfield?

He is what we call a "mugwump". By definition, it is possible to not be legally on the line of scrimmage nor legally in the backfield. When a player is in that position, he causes the formation to be illegal. (He is also ineligible)

By his positioning, he does not meet the definition of being on the LOS nor of being in the backfield.

For example: too far back to be on the LOS (behind the snapper's hip) but too far forward to be in the backfield (even with the end's hip).

Going into studying the rules with zys we're finding a whole bunch more doubts on the book... for starters

Rule 2-7-1-c states:
c. A valid or invalid fair catch signal deprives the receiving team of the
opportunity to advance the ball, and the ball is declared dead at the spot
of the catch or recovery or at the spot of the signal if the catch precedes
the signal (Rule 6-5-1-a Exception).

What does "or at the spot of the signal if the catch precedes
the signal" means?

It means: wherever the player was when he signaled, on condition that the catch happened before the signal.

Play example, Team A punts, Team B's punt returner catches the kick and starts running. Either because he hopes to confuse the kick coverage team or because he is a 16 year old kid, he gives a fair catch signal as he is running. Officials should get on the whistles and shut things down as ball was dead as soon as the signal was given. The catch was before the signal but the signal causes ball to become dead.

In this case, are there any penalties?

Under NCAA rules, there is no penalty other than ball becoming dead at the spot it was when the signal was given. If the returner gives the signal and continues to advance, then you could enforce the dead ball delay penalty but I would not do that unless the covering officials had noticed what transpired and tried to shut things down but the returner kept running

A doubt about fumble in the end of a half
 

In the NFL, if a fumble occurs in the last two minutes of a half, only the player that suffered the fumble may recover and advance it. Is it the same in the NCAA?

On 4th down only in the NCAA and also on 4th down in the NFL.

In the NCAA this rule applies on all 4th downs and all try downs, regardless of time remaining. (Should be noted that once there has been a change of team possession during the down, this rule no longer applies, i.e. Team A fumbles, Team B (#B24) recovers, and then B24 fumbles. Anyone from either team can recover and advance the fumble. And should A recover it but fumble again, anyone can advance and recover)

Another one...
 

A.R. 7-3-8-XIX states:

On a legal forward pass beyond the neutral zone, A80 and B60 are attempting to catch the pass thrown to A80’s position. A14, who is not attempting to catch the pass, blocks B65 downfield, either before the pass is thrown or while the uncatchable pass is in flight. RULING: Team A foul, offensive pass interference. Penalty—15 yards from the previous spot.

Why is this a foul if the pass was not catchable by B65 or hadn´t been thrown?

Philosophically, that is a very good question. This ruling highlights a key concept with regard to pass interference, the offense is much more restricted than is the defense. The rulemakers have decided that the offense should be more restricted in order to keep the game "in balance". Therefore, Team A cannot do some things that Team B is permitted to do.

Bottom line, the written rules prohibit (starting at the snap) the contact downfield by the offense on a play like this. Furthermore, the catchable/uncatchable component only applies to Team A contact when the contact is near where the ball is thrown. I believe the feeling is that by blocking away from the pass, the offense "tricks" the defense unfairly as the defender assumes this will be a running play since he is being blocked downfield.

Rule 9-3-4-g states:

A defensive player may not continuously contact an opponent’s helmet (including the face mask) with hand(s) or arm(s) (Exception: Against the runner).

So is it legal against the runner? It seems wrong.

They wanted to keep the rule fairly simple, so blocking downfield by A is prohibited until the pass is thrown beyond the neutral zone, if a pass is then thrown beyond the neutral zone. Another way of putting it is that it's illegal to throw a pass beyond the neutral zone if during that down a player of A has already blocked beyond the neutral zone -- but they didn't write it that way because they wanted the foul to be by the blocker rather than its being an illegal pass. There are certain advantages of compactness of language by making this part of the provisions on pass interference rather than the legality of the pass.

This might be one of the things you might consider changing for your country once you have the translation completed. Maybe it would be simpler to consider the pass to be the violation in that case, and to penalize it by making it incomplete. But you must consider now that there's no loss of down with the offensive pass interference, the loss of down incurred by making it an illegal forward pass might be a more severe penalty in some cases than the distance with down repeated.

Robert in the Bronx

No, that isnt a possibility. Brazil has joined IFAF so that they can become part of World American football and join the 50 or so other countries worldwide. IFAF play straight NCAA Rules so Brazil need to do the same.


OPI
TXMike hit the nail on the head about OPI, when he talked about the defense expecting a run when they are blocked by the offense.

In a similar way to how we as officials read a play by the blocking, then the defensive secondary read a play by whether the receivers run pass routes or whether they come out and run block.

The action of the defensive secondary when they see a teammate be blocked or they are blocked is to try and lose the offensive guy and find the runner and make the tackle.

If the pass is not thrown, then there is no OPI foul. There must be a forward pass occur for OPI.

If the pass is caught behind the NZ, then there is no OPI foul. Only if there is a forward pass that crosses the NZ can there be OPI.


Yes it is legal. It is regarded as part of attempting to make the tackle.

There are of course variations on the rules in a lot of the countries that also play IFAF. Generally though they are very small changes, or limited to administration issues (but not always).
One that always bugged me, but the Germans won't change is that they took out rule 1.4.11 Use of Tobacco.

Rules are about equal advantage. In this case A14 is restricted from blocking because he knows or should know a pass play is in progress (NFHS 7-5-7 - 15 yards and loss of down).

A B player who does not know the play is restricted from interference with receiving a pass until when the pass is in the air on theory B has to guess until the pass is thrown whether the play is a pass play.

However, during the late 80s defensive backs gained an advantage when they began "chucking" offensive receivers -- blocking them off their routes by basically giving them a shove. NCAA and NFHS (9-2-3d) made this illegal use of hands to keep the rules in balance as chucking had given the defense an unfair advantage.

Don't know the NFHS restrictions but in NCAA the defender can continue "chucking" the receiver all the way down the field as long as the receiver is not on the same yardline as the defender or gone past the defender or the ball has been passed.

This is an imprtant distinction for a place that is transitioning from NFL to NCAA rules as the NFL rules are much more restrictive.

NFHS Rules and NCAA Rules are basically the same. NFHS states when he is "no longer a potential blocker" whereas the entire NCAA Rule reads

c . Defensive players may use hands and arms to push, pull, ward off or
lift offensive players obviously attempting to block them. Defensive
players may ward off or legally block an eligible pass receiver until that
player occupies the same yard line as the defender or until the opponent
could not possibly block him. Continuous contact is illegal (A.R.
9-3-4-I, II and IV).

My interpretation and more importantly, Rogers Redding's is once the eligible receiver get even with or past the d-back contact was illegal.

Would an eligible receiver on a crossing route be subject to a linebacker blocking?

My point is that this statement is not factually accurate when it comes to NCAA. It IS legal to give the receiver a "chuck" to knock them off their route as long as the previous exceptions I mentioned do not apply. The receiver crossing in front of the LB is vulnerable to the "chuck" as he is typically a yard or more in front of the defender.

change of subject
 

guys, a new doubt came up (zys is a much better doubt creator then I am)...

post scrimmage kick

I realize PSK applies to fouls that happens by team B during team A kicks. And reading the book I couldn't find something that would tell me that roughing/running into the kicker would not be PSK fouls.

Help please?

1. For kicks, the NFHS refers to the teams as 'K' and 'R'.

2. PSK requires not only that the foul occur after the kick, but also beyond the expanded neutral zone. Roughing/running into the kicker occur behind the neutral zone, so do not receive PSK enforcement.

PSK fouls occur beyond the LOS.
Roughing the kicker usually occurs behind.

Roughing the kicker can only occur behind the LOS, otherwise, it is an illegal kicking.

For what it's worth (and unless I am mistaken)...Mr Vasques is translating the NCAA code for use in Brazil. When folks try to help him with some of the confusion he is running into, we need to remember it is the NCAA code and try not to confuse further by referring to NFHS code/protocols/etc

Yes, Mike, that's me translating to portuguese and Zys is a friend of mine who's also helping the process. We're done translating and are now just checking the book again so some doubts are coming up.
I know this is a very strong NFHS forum and I appreciate all the help I'm getting, but I am working with NCAA rules.

It is absolutely a STRONG NFHS forum. It was one of the first places on the internet when refs started gathering online about 10 years ago and the membership here has demonstrated time and time again an incredible depth of understandingof NFHS rules, policies, etc It also has guys from probably one of the largest number of different states of any internet ref forum around.

An equally strong site for NCAA discussions is NCAA Rules Discussion You are going to get a much wider variety of opinion and explanation on NCAA rules there than you can get here as the NCAA numbers here are relatively small.

So, they do make stuff up just for kicks!