Scrimmage Kick

[WGGriffon]

Scrimmage kick from K's 25. R20 in position to catch the ball at R's 45. While ball is in air, K5 contacts R21, who is in the same vicinity of R20 and knocks him into R20. After the contact R20 muffs the kick at R's 45. What is the call if:


R20 recovers muff on R's 40?

K5 recovers ball on R's 40?

R20 recovers ball on R's 40, retreats to R's 25, where he is hit, fumbles the ball and K5 picks up the ball and advances it into the end zone?

Does anything change if R21 was coming in to block for R20?

Does anything change if there was a valid fair catch signal?


Lively discussion at the meeting. Would love to get some feedback here.

Thanks

[bigjohn]

NFHS Forum: Blocked into R

[WGGriffon]

Not sure what that post decided except for I just read what looked like a transcript from our Study Group tonight. Lots of opinions, but no concrete answers.

[bigjohn]

6-5-ART. 6 . . . While any free kick is in flight in or beyond the neutral zone to the
receiver’s goal line or any scrimmage kick is in flight beyond the neutral zone to
the receiver’s goal line, 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 prohibition applies even when no fair-catch signal is given, but it does not
apply after a free kick has been touched by a receiver, or after a scrimmage kick
has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the
time of touching.

[ppaltice]

If K5 initiates contact with R21, he is guilty of KCI as R is in a position to catch to the kick and was impeded.

If R21 is blocking K5 and gets too close to R20 and you deem that K5 did not impede R20's path to the ball, then you have no foul.

It is a judgement call. The fact that K5 blocks R21 into R20 is not a foul by itself as K has the right to position himself near where the kick is coming down in order to make a play.

[bigjohn]

6-2-4

ART. 4 . . . Any K player may catch or recover a scrimmage kick while it is
beyond the neutral zone or the expanded neutral zone, provided such kick has
been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time
of touching. Such touching is ignored if it is caused by K pushing or blocking R
into contact with the ball or it is caused by K legally batting or muffing the ball
into R. Such catch or recovery by K beyond the neutral zone causes the ball to
become dead. (See 6-5-6 EXCEPTION)


So if K blocks any R that causes this touching it should be ignored. Not just R20. How can you say he didn't impede the kick receiver?

[Mike L]

The covering official will have to decide what action R21 is taking prior to the contact. From the post, there is no way for us to tell if R21 is also trying to catch the kick or is attempting to block or just how close he is to R20 ("vicinity" is pretty vague). All R's are protected if they are trying to catch the kick, but if he appears to be attempting to block a K player rather than field the ball he can be contacted. If there is some doubt about what he's stumbling around and doing, I would err on the side of attempting to catch the kick.
So, operating under the assumption R21 was a blocker and making no attempt on the ball, then you have to consider the block itself. If it's a hit with seperation created between K & R21 and R21 then stumbling into R20, you have R21 impeding R20 and R21 "blocking" R20 into the ball. Now, you have to decide did the ball go off R20 or R21. If it's R20, you are going to treat it like any normal muff of the kick. If it's R21, you can rule ignore the touch because he was blocked into it.
If it's a driving block where K and R21 remain together and both go into R20, I think you could easily rule KCI no mater which one actually contacted R20.
K has no rights to catch the ball before the touch because there are R players in the area. After the R touch, K can catch/recover and may not advance, but it could be first touching depending on the action above.
A Fair Catch signal would make me err a little more toward the KCI call, but otherwise everything else is pretty much the same.

[Mike L]

??

[bigjohn]

This prohibition applies even when no fair-catch signal is given, but it does not
apply after a free kick has been touched by a receiver, or after a scrimmage kick
has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the
time of touching.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by WGGriffon

Scrimmage kick from K's 25. R20 in position to catch the ball at R's 45. While ball is in air, K5 contacts R21, who is in the same vicinity of R20 and knocks him into R20. After the contact R20 muffs the kick at R's 45. What is the call if:


A. R20 recovers muff on R's 40?

B. K5 recovers ball on R's 40?

C. R20 recovers ball on R's 40, retreats to R's 25, where he is hit, fumbles the ball and K5 picks up the ball and advances it into the end zone?

D. Does anything change if R21 was coming in to block for R20?

CANADIAN RULING:

K5's contact is legal unless it if a block in the back. This is an in-flight foul applied at PP.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

) So if K blocks any R that causes this touching it should be ignored. Not just R20. How can you say he didn't impede the kick receiver?

Your question serves as an example of why the rule makers chose to rely on, and give final authority to, the judgment of impartial game officials rather than anyone connected to the competing teams.

[jemiller]

A. R20 recovers muff on R's 40? R ball on the 40.

B. K5 recovers ball on R's 40? K's ball on the 40.

C. R20 recovers ball on R's 40, retreats to R's 25, where he is hit, fumbles the ball and K5 picks up the ball and advances it into the end zone? TD for K.

D. Does anything change if R21 was coming in to block for R20? No.

IMHO Jim

[HLin NC]

Are you in my association 'cause we had this same discussion Friday night between my R, BJ, and I coming home.