scrimmage kick play

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

K's ball 4th and 10 at their own 12. K is punting. The snap is a bad one and never makes it back to the punter. The ball is almost completely at rest at K's 5 when R55 muffs it in an attempt to secure possession. The muffed ball then ends up in K's endzone, where K15 picks it up and tries to punt. However, R72 blocks the punt and the ball sails out the back of K's endzone.

Ruling??

CANADIAN RULING:

Team A 1D/10 @ A-20. (to be confirmed)

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

one small clarification: I think NCAA rule says that Team A may not bat a backwards pass forward in an attempt to gain yardage. (my emphasis)...which means, I suppose, there are instances where it'd be OK for A to bat forward. (say a backwards pass was about to be intercepted by B, and A's only play was to bat it--forward--away from B.)

Rule 9-4-1a
While a pass is in flight, any player eligible to touch the ball may bat it in any direction (Exception: Rule 9-4-2)

Rule 9-4-2
A backward pass in flight shall not be batted forward by the passing team.

Your assumption is incorrect by rule. I'm not sure if the philosophy of this rule though matches what you say. The definition of batting is "intentionally striking it or intentionally changing its direction with the hands or arms." The definition of a muff is "an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover a ball that it touched in the attempt." In the play you describe you could possibly call it a muff if you want to let it go.

[Robert Goodman]

I could make the situation even funnier for a Fed ruling. Say in batting the opponent's backward pass to prevent it from landing out of bounds, the player bats it toward the batting player's own goal line, but on hitting the field of play it takes a funny hop and bounces into the original passing team's end zone. Clearly the ball would not have gone into the end zone absent the opponent's bat, but the force the opponent imparted to the ball was away from that end zone rather than towards it.

Robert in the Bronx

[chymechowder]

You're right. thanks for the correction.

I thought I'd read something about "an attempt to gain yardage" recently, and I had....in the 2005 rulebook I had in my car. (probably a bad habit to keep those around. haha.)

Granted, the forward batting of a backwards pass foul has got to be one of the rarest calls, but any idea on whether there were actual plays (in big games?) that prompted the rule change? Also, when did it change?

In my opinion, it does make more sense the way it is now. Better to disallow it completely than have the official try to divine the intent of a running back who bats a pitch forward.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I could make the situation even funnier for a Fed ruling. Say in batting the opponent's backward pass to prevent it from landing out of bounds, the player bats it toward the batting player's own goal line, but on hitting the field of play it takes a funny hop and bounces into the original passing team's end zone. Clearly the ball would not have gone into the end zone absent the opponent's bat, but the force the opponent imparted to the ball was away from that end zone rather than towards it.

Robert in the Bronx

Robert, it does't matter A new force cannot be imparted on a backward pass that is still airborne.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I could make the situation even funnier for a Fed ruling. Say in batting the opponent's backward pass to prevent it from landing out of bounds, the player bats it toward the batting player's own goal line, but on hitting the field of play it takes a funny hop and bounces into the original passing team's end zone. Clearly the ball would not have gone into the end zone absent the opponent's bat, but the force the opponent imparted to the ball was away from that end zone rather than towards it.

Robert in the Bronx

Both teams could play a volleyball match with the pass but until it hits the ground it would still be the original pass' force that put the ball in the EZ. The only funny part would be the look on the A coach's face when you tell him by rule he's SOL and it's time to get his kicking team out.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by chymechowder

Granted, the forward batting of a backwards pass foul has got to be one of the rarest calls, but any idea on whether there were actual plays (in big games?) that prompted the rule change? Also, when did it change?

I don't remember when in Fed, but in NCAA there was an incident. Some time in the 1960s or earlier (it might even have been back when they went from 13 rules to 10) NCAA had recodified a section and left a loophole by forbidding only the gain of distance by batting a ball forward and out of bounds. The loophole languished until some time in the 1970s when a college varsity coach noticed it as explained in Illustrated Football Rules and put in a play where the ostensible place kick holder tossed the ball up like a volleyball serve for the kicker to slap forward, and then their whole team pounced on the ball in the end zone. Interestingly, coaches immediately realized this not to be in the spirit of the game, and even though a TD was ruled, it was never repeated by that or any other team, and the rules were amended the next season to the current provision. Indeed, it looks as if the play was done just to call the att'n of the rules committee to the loophole.

Robert in the Bronx

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Welpe

Robert, it does't matter A new force cannot be imparted on a backward pass that is still airborne.

Yes, but by "in the air" I didn't mean the ball hadn't been previously grounded, just that it was not dead by virtue of rolling over the sideline. Think high bounce. Or even not so high.