Kick Catch Interference

[Reffing Rev.]

Contact with the kick receiver simultaneous to his contact with the punt is KCI as this is an interference with the opportunity to make the catch, it does not matter if R ends up with a catch or not. If he completes the catch and then is contacted, no foul for KCI, but if he his hit before he has the opportunity to complete the catch then I've got KCI.

touching always precedes possession, and touching vacates the KCI, but I believe that if they are simultaneous we've got a foul.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

Contact with the kick receiver simultaneous to his contact with the punt is KCI as this is an interference with the opportunity to make the catch, it does not matter if R ends up with a catch or not. If he completes the catch and then is contacted, no foul for KCI, but if he his hit before he has the opportunity to complete the catch then I've got KCI.

touching always precedes possession, and touching vacates the KCI, but I believe that if they are simultaneous we've got a foul.

Your first paragraph describes exactly how we've been instructed in Ohio.

But that contradicts what you've said in your second paragraph: it is possible to have KCI if R touches the ball, and even if R catches the ball, if the contact occurs before the catch is complete.

The case play ruling introduces the standard of an "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball." K can interfere with that opportunity and yet R somehow still catches the ball.

Just as in baseball, a runner can interfere with a fielder yet the fielder might still make the play. Merely making the play does not mean there was no interference.

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Your first paragraph describes exactly how we've been instructed in Ohio.

But that contradicts what you've said in your second paragraph: it is possible to have KCI if R touches the ball, and even if R catches the ball, if the contact occurs before the catch is complete.

The case play ruling introduces the standard of an "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball." K can interfere with that opportunity and yet R somehow still catches the ball.

Just as in baseball, a runner can interfere with a fielder yet the fielder might still make the play. Merely making the play does not mean there was no interference.

I see how there could be a contradiction, I was referring to a case where R muffs the kick and then is contacted before completing the catch. The ball bounces off of his shoulder pads and then he gets contacted. Judgment by the official determines if there was interference or not. "Simultaneous" contact would be interference, contact after a muff is not. Thats what I was trying to say.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Reffing Rev.

I see how there could be a contradiction, I was referring to a case where R muffs the kick and then is contacted before completing the catch. The ball bounces off of his shoulder pads and then he gets contacted. Judgment by the official determines if there was interference or not. "Simultaneous" contact would be interference, contact after a muff is not. Thats what I was trying to say.

Gotcha. I wasn't thinking of a muff. Good point.

I will add that the opportunity for a catch has ended once R muffs the kick. That would explain why contacting the R player after a muff is not KCI.

[ref1986]

"After the kick has been touched by a receiver" means "after the kick has been touched by a receiver." Touched is touched. Once he touches it there cannot be KCI. I don't like the rule, but there are several NF rules I don't like.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by ref1986

"After the kick has been touched by a receiver" means "after the kick has been touched by a receiver." Touched is touched. Once he touches it there cannot be KCI. I don't like the rule, but there are several NF rules I don't like.

Are you suggesting it's humanly possible to differentiate between touching and completing a (clean) catch (non bobble, non-muff, non-tipped)?

[insatty]

Simultaneous or nearly simultaneous contact should be KCI. R is entitled to an "unimpeded opportunity to CATCH the kick." NCAA 6-4-1 (emphasis added). "Catch" is defined as "POSSESSION of a live ball in flight." 2-7-a-1 (emphasis added). "A player gains possession when he secures the ball by holding or controlling it while contacting the ground." 2-2-5-a

Thus, the opportunity to catch the kick that R is entitled to includes the opportunity to secure or control the ball while contacting the ground. Simultaneous or near simultaneous contact does not permit the opportunity to catch the kick.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ref1986

"After the kick has been touched by a receiver" means "after the kick has been touched by a receiver." Touched is touched. Once he touches it there cannot be KCI. I don't like the rule, but there are several NF rules I don't like.

You may choose to ignore the case play that I cited, which has the force of a rule. As I've said, our state interpreter made clear that the operative test of KCI is an "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball," and his examples were as I've described.

[bigjohn]

and since there is no clear rule, no two crews call it the same and there in lies the lack of consistency that I hate about HS officiating!

It should be called the same in every game!

[ref1986]

Originally Posted by mbyron

You may choose to ignore the case play that I cited, which has the force of a rule. As I've said, our state interpreter made clear that the operative test of KCI is an "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball," and his examples were as I've described.

I'm not ignoring it. The casebook example you cite is a K player obstructing R's path to the ball. That's the context in which the "unmolested opportunity" statement is made. Our state rules interpreter, and all the chapter rules interpreters I know, say this is not KCI. I thought this was pretty settled case law in HS. Also read the statement in the casebook that says if the casebook conflicts with the rule book, the rule book trumps.

[UpNorthRef]

Let's not forget that this is a Federation rule that is predicated upon maintaining some measurable degree of safety in a highly dangerous sport. Why pick at the edges. Just because the receivers skill level (or luck) allowed him to complete the catch of the kick does not mean we give K the right to endanger them and give them a "pass" on the KCI foul when they have hit R prior to completing the catch.