Kick Catch Interference

[phansen]

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.

[NorCalRef12]

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.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by NorCalRef12

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.

Originally Posted by 2009 Case Book

6.5.6 SITUATION D: K1’s punt is high but short. R2, from well down field, runs
toward the ball to get in position to attempt to catch it. K2 is also moving toward
the ball or just standing there when: (a) K2 is contacted by R2; or (b) K2 causes
R2 to veer away from the ball but there is no contact by K2. The ball strikes the
ground and is recovered by R3. RULING: K2 has committed kick-catching interference
in both (a) and (b) since K2 did not provide R2 an unmolested opportunity
to catch the ball.

[kdf5]

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.

[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.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

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.

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".

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by phansen

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.

CANADIAN RULING:

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

[KSRef]

What would the NCAA ruling be on this?

[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.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by KSRef

What would the NCAA ruling be on this?

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.

[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)?

[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.