Kick Catch Interference

[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.

[Robert Goodman]

Pass interference protection ends when the ball is touched by or touches a player, and it seems likely the rules that were adopted for kicks and passes intended the same thing. Of course you never know when some years separate the adoption of the provisions, the example being in the other thread of the non-expanded neutral zone for purposes of determining whether R has touched a field goal attempt on their side of their line of scrimmage.

In NFL rules (probably an older wording of NCAA rules) the protection is described as "opportunity to make a fair catch", assuming the fiction that the receiver might up until the last instant be able to signal for one.

Robert