Kick Catch Interference
 

NFHS

K1 punts the ball to R1. K2 hits R1 simultaneously as R1 catches the ball and is tackled. Can this be KCI? In my mind, an absolute KCI if R2 mishandles the ball. The only problem I had is that R1 held on to the ball.

According to NFHS rules, K may contact R once the R player touches the kick in flight. There is no "halo" rule in high school.

There isn't a very good case book play on this, but if you're the covering official, I would be VERY sure that R had touched the ball before letting K get away with blocking R.

Although there is no "halo" rule, R is entitled to an "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball." According to our state interpreter, that implies that K may NOT hit R the moment the R player touches the ball. The "opportunity to catch the ball" extends beyond merely touching the ball.

If R caught the ball then there's no KCI.

7-5-6...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.

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.

Hoping to avoid another "grammer" discussion, I'd rather focus on applying the rule to the game it was designed for. Considering the human limitations of eyesight, actually determining the precise moment "touching" becomes "catching" any sort of Kicked ball, in relation to the instant a receiver is contacted seems just a bit preposterous for general purposes.

I would submit that the mention of FC protection NOT applying after a Kick (Free or Scrimmage) has been touched (NF:6-5-6) is included to cover situations as described in Case Book 6.5.6.E, where a player touches a kick in flight, but does not instantly continue completing the catch (muffed, bobbled, batted, tipped, etc).

When any of that occurs, and the catch is subsequently completed, it is a FC, but during the interval between R's touching and the subsequent completion of the catch (following the muff, bobble, bat or tip), both K and R have equal access to the loose ball , so there is no additional (FC) protection afforded to R.

The only "true simultaneous" existing under NFHS rules is a "simultaneous catch" (NF: 2-4-3). Just about everything else is based on "either/or" logic. FC aside, contact by K either happened before R was able to complete the catch, or it happened after the catch.

Once again, that's a judgment call and "one size will never fit all".

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

15-yard Restraining Zone foul. If you rule UR as well, an additional 15 yards.

What would the NCAA ruling be on this?

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.

"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.

It is KCI if K contacts R before or simultaneously with R first touching the kick. Also, unlike NFHS, if with a fair catch signal R muffs the ball, he's still protected if he has a chance to still make a catch.

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

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.

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!
:mad:

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.

Ref1986 is right on the money for NFHS rules. Once R touches the kick, KCI no longer applies. If he wants protection from contact, he can signal for a fair catch. But if he wants the opportunity advance, he takes the risk of being contacted after he touches the ball.

This rule is only unclear, if you want to be unclear. Unless you have some super human visual blessing that allows you split this gnat's eyelash to the extent you can separate the initial touching of a kick from the (clean)catching of that kick you're just blowing smoke.

As soon as HS teams reach a level of playing the exact same in every game, we'll be able to officiate exactly the same, but not until.

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.

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

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.

Even under NFHS rules, K may not touch the ball or R "while the kick is in flight." A kick ends when R gains "possession" of the ball. Player "possession" is defined as the player "holding or controlling" the ball.

Thus, K may not touch R until R holds or controls the ball. For consistency and safety, NFHS officials should officiate KCI as NCAA officials do. A defenseless R should not be clocked until he has the chance to touch, secure, and then control the ball. Only then may R protect himself from oncoming tacklers.

As the NCAA rule expresses, when in doubt it is KCI.

I disagree with your reasoning, but agree with your conclusion. The NFHS rules state that while "...any scrimmage kick is in flight beyond the neutral zone to the receiver’s goal line, K shall not: Touch the ball or R, unless blocked into the ball or R, or to ward off a blocker;" The rule goes on to say "This prohibition applies even when no fair-catch signal is given, but it does not apply ... after a scrimmage kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time of touching." Since touching precedes possession, the K players do not have to wait until the kick has ended.

As I stated in my original post on this, when K contacts R at essentially the same time that the ball gets there, then the official should ere on the side of KCI. K should not be allowed to get a cheap muff and recover the ball after they had failed to reach the LTG on their previous series.

If you use the logic that K has a completely unmolested opportunity to make a "Catch", which is gaining possession of a loose ball in flight, then I would teach my return man to muff the kick into the air all the way down the field because K could not legally touch him until the ball hit the ground or he gained possession.

Can we also put in their NFL officiating and NCAA officiating? At every level there is going to be a lack of consistency in calling certain plays. If that is something that you truly hate maybe a change in your profession is in order. I can't think of any high school level officials who decide that no matter what they are going to try and be different than the crew the previous week. If the quality of officiating is that poor maybe you should switch sides and make it better.:)

I think Insatty hit the nail on the head here. When in doubt go back to the definitiions. A kick ends when a player gains possession or when the ball becomes dead while not in player possession.

Possession says the player must control it. Thus touching can not be possessing and the kick can not have ended.

We should not allow the K player the free shot on the R player. Yes, it is a very impressive hit and will draw plenty of "oohs" and "aaaahs" from the crowd.

I would call it KCI.

You forgot the rest of the rule.

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.

So touching the ball removes the restriction.


Here is another problem with simply saying that K cannot touch R while the ball is in flight.

R signals for a fair catch. R muffs the attempt to catch the kick into the air. K contacts him to possess the ball. Your reading would call this KCI. Casebook play 6.5.6E says this is legal.

But what if you substituted "forward pass" for "kick"? Would you deny the eligibility of an opponent to hit a receiver of one of those simultaneously to its being touched?

Robert

A muff ends R's "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball." He screwed it up, and he may be hit.

That's different from insisting that R may be creamed the instant he touches the ball (as the NFL allows, for example).

This sounds loke another example where some insist on "reading" common sense completely out of the solution. The NFHS rule regarding this situation differs from both the NCAA and NFL interpretations in that, the FC signal provides complete protection to a receiver prior to his contacting the ball in attempting to make a catch.

The verbiage of the rule is intended to provide that, unlike NCAA, once the attempt to catch the kick fails (muff, bobble, tip) that protection ends and the kick is fair game to either team. The basic idea of the FC is to provide an obvious (by means of a required clear signal) agreement from the receiver that he will not advance the kick in return for not being contacted to prevent catching the ball.

When there is no FC signal, such an agrrement doesn't exist, but the receiver is still entitled to the limited protection offered by NF: 6-5-6 (When any free or scrimmage kick is in flight, K shall not;"Touch the ball or R.....").

Case Book 6.5.6.D provides the detail in (b) that K is guilty of KCI because he did not provide, "R with an unmolested opportunity to catch the ball". The word used is "catch" not "touch". These two words are not interchangeable in relation to determining KCI.

The "touching" of a kick, that does not directly conclude with catching the kick, that is subsequently muffed, bobbled or tipped removes the exclusive right to possessing that kick enjoyed by R. However the "touching" that precedes completion of a catch (NF: 2-4-2) does not relieve K of it's responsibility to NOT deprive R from the "unmolested opportunity to catch the ball" included in the official interpretation of NF: 6-5-6, as relates specifically to Free and/or Scrimmage kicks.

This is NOT intended to be rocket science, R is entitled to "catch" a kick, without being contacted. If he chooses to give up the right to advance that kick after catching it, he can extend the protection against being contacted to after he makes the catch.

If he chooses NOT to add that extra protection, and retain the right to advance the caught kick, he can be legally contacted as soon as he COMPLETES the catch.

Suggesting that there is some observible interval between touching the kick, in the act of catching and actually securing possession by that (uniterrupted) catch is nonsense. We're talking in term of miliseconds, and suggesting that can even be reasonably determined is ridiculous.

There are times the verbiage used in multiple rules means the same thing, and times the verbiage used is NOT interchangable. The term is Fair CATCH, not Fair TOUCH and the appropriate penalty is NOT Kick TOUCHING interference.

Forget the word "simultaneous" it wioll only cause you trouble. Like being "Pregnant" you either are or you are not. Contact is either AFTER the catch is completed (and absent a FC signal) is perfectly legal, or contact is BEFORE the catch is completed and is a foul (KCI).

No matter how you decide it, you'll never see more than 50% of those watching agree with you.

We are really disagreeing over the word touch vs catch and that could be as little time as the blink of any eye so this thread is likely academic rather than practical anyway.