options

[James Neil]

This play can help take your mind off your finical trouble while you wait for all that money to come pouring in from johny5’s fabulous money scam. {8 ^ (

K 4/10 @ K-10. R15 is standing at the K-45 waiting to catch the punt. As R15 attempts to catch the punt, K85 stands in his way. R15 crashes into K85. The ball rolls, untouched, out of bounds @ 50 . R elects to take the ball with an awarded fair catch @ K-45.
On the next play from scrimmage, A15 attempts to catch a forward pass, B85 stands in his way. A15 crashes into B85 whose standing @ K-20. Give all options!

[cmathews]

James, I am not completely sure that I award a fair catch if indeed K85 was actually just standing there....but either way in the forward pass, we have an incomplete pass, K85 is entitled to a spot on the field in both cases, as long as he established it legally.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by cmathews
James, I am not completely sure that I award a fair catch if indeed K85 was actually just standing there

Why not? NF 6-5-6 says in part. “ While any scrimmage kick is in flight beyond the NZ 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, NOR OBSTRUCT R’S PATH TO THE BALL. (caps are mine). This prohibition applies even when no fair-catch signal is given”

I don't believe we lift this restriction just because the K player isn’t moving.

[/i]but either way in the forward pass, we have an incomplete pass, K85 is entitled to a spot on the field in both cases, as long as he established it legally. [/QUOTE]
I respectfully disagree with you on this one NF 7-5-10a “It is forward pass interference if; Any player of A or B who is beyond the NZ interferes with an eligible opponents opportunity to MOVE TOWARD, catch or bat a pass.”(again caps are mine)

The fact that a player has legally established himself a spot on the field is irreverent if his positioning interferers with a receiver's opportunity to move toward a kick or pass he‘s trying to catch. In other words QUIT STANDING AROUND AND GET THE HELL OUT OF THE WAY! 8^)

[cmathews]

James,
Without my books, I won't argue the kick any further, but in the pass play, if B85 is in a position to catch the ball, it certainly wouldn't be pass interference because he established position, it could actually be Offensive Pass Interference, and I respectfully disagree with you on the fact that you can't establish a position and keep it. But again until I get my books back out I don't have any rules reference to help with my case

[Bob M.]

I have to agree with Jim on both counts here.

Both Federation and NCAA codes specify that K cannot impede R's opportunity to catch a kick. That includes impeding his ability to move toward the kick. Federation rules say that K may not "...obstruct R's path to the ball." NCAA rules removed the 2 yd. halo this season, making it now very similar to the Federation code, and we've yet to see the new interpretations related to kick catching interference. But I'm willing to bet that standing still in the way of a receiver moving toward a kick will likewise be ruled as interference just like in Federation ball.

Same is true in a passing situation: Federation rules say that a player cannot "...interfere with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch, or bat the pass." NCAA rules define defensive pass interference as "...contact beyond the neutral zone by a
Team B player whose intent to impede an eligible opponent is obvious and it could prevent the opponent the opportunity of receiving a catchable forward pass." If it's clear that the B player is not playing the ball and is standing in his position with the intention of blocking A's path to the ball, that would be DPI.

I'll come back with my answers to Jim's post assuming that all of this contact is illegal.

[Bob M.]

Jim’s play…
K 4/10 @ K-10. R15 is standing at the K-45 waiting to catch the punt. As R15 attempts to catch the punt, K85 stands in his way. R15 crashes into K85. The ball rolls, untouched, out of bounds @ 50 . R elects to take the ball with an awarded fair catch @ K-45.
On the next play from scrimmage, A15 attempts to catch a forward pass, B85 stands in his way. A15 crashes into B85 whose standing @ K-20. Give all options!

Clear that K85’s contact is KCI. Assuming that B85’s obstruction of A15’s movement toward the ball is DPI (a pretty good assumption based on the description), A has the following options:

FEDERATION: A’s ball 1-10 @ B’s 30. Assuming the pass fell incomplete, clock starts on the snap, or A could decline the penalty and play 2-10 @ B’s 45, or they could decline the distance portion of the penalty and play 1-10 from B’s 45 (last two options are ridiculous…let’s ignore them). And since the down being replayed is a down following an awarded fair catch, A could also choose to free kick from B’s 30 with a chance of scoring a FG – 3 pts.

NCAA: A’s ball 1-10 from B’s 30 since the foul was more than 15 yards in advance of the previous spot. No option to free kick in an awarded fair catch situation for NCAA rules. Here too, clock on the snap.

Did I forget anything Jim???

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Bob M.


Did I forget anything Jim???

Heck Bob, the way you cover all the bases leads me to believe you must work baseball too 8^)

[cmathews]

gentlemen, with that logic, just how do we ever have OPI??
Using the "cannot interefere......" statement, it would be DPI in the following: Ball in the air B15 is standing in position to catch the ball, A85 comes back to the ball runs through B15 then misses the ball. While I would call OPI using the above statement would make it DPI because the defender impeded the progress to the ball....

[Edited by cmathews on Apr 15th, 2003 at 02:35 PM]

[JMN]

cmathews,

I think that you have OPI when the eligible A player (who is restricted from the snap) interferes with B's right to play the ball. In your example, would I call OPI? Don't know, would have to see it. I wouldn't call it just because B had some established position, although this could be a factor if A truly had created an advantage by running into B. In my experience, most of these end up being non-foul contact where both players are going for the ball. In this case unless there is obvious advantage, I let the play call itself. Incomplete, no flag.

Just as B can't play the "man", neither can A just play the "man". I believe it's incumbent on both A and B to make a bona fide effort to make a play on the ball to avert a possible interference call. If they are both going for the ball, contact is usually incidental (unless of course, you have an obvious hold or intentional contact).

I still remember on a downfield pass, A and B both had there eyes on the ball, running side by side, they both went up, tangled feet, fell down without any chance of playing the ball. I had a big no call and got BOOED by both sides for missing an obvious DPI and OPI at the same time. It doesn't get any better than that!!

[cmathews]

JMN I agree, no call in the last one and how bout the boos hu? My point is that if you are in an established position and someone runs into you, I don't think you have interference. I could not call it anyway....but that's just my thoughts...

[mikesears]

Originally posted by James Neil
This play can help take your mind off your finical trouble while you wait for all that money to come pouring in from johny5’s fabulous money scam. {8 ^ (

What? It was a scam?

K 4/10 @ K-10. R15 is standing at the K-45 waiting to catch the punt. As R15 attempts to catch the punt, K85 stands in his way. R15 crashes into K85.

Flag down at spot of foul for Kick catching interference.

The ball rolls, untouched, out of bounds @ 50 .

R's options.
1. Results of play. R's ball 1/10 @ 50.
2. Replay 4th down. K's ball 4/5 @ K-5.
3. Awarded fair catch at spot of interference which brings it's own choices.
a. Free kick for FG attempt after awarded fair catch.
b. Scrimmage down at spot of awarded fair catch.

R elects to take the ball with an awarded fair catch @ K-45.

R has made their decision then.

On the next play from scrimmage, A15 attempts to catch a forward pass, B85 stands in his way. A15 crashes into B85 whose standing @ K-20. Give all options!

If B85 was not moving to catch or bat the pass but was simply standing in A15's way, I'd have defensive pass interference.

Options:
1. A can take the results of the play. Not likely to happen unless A85 actually caught the pass for a gain longer than 15 yards.
2. A can have the penalty enforced from the B-45 giving them the ball at the B-20 B-30 with an automatic 1st down...

A) then elect to free kick for a field goal attempt OR
B) then play a normal scrimmage down.



[Edited by mikesears on Apr 16th, 2003 at 07:26 AM]

[cmathews]

ok ok, I got my books out last nite...and although I don't really like it, both cases are interference...the kicking I can see more than the pass....and it also goes back to you have to be there, we know pass intereference when we see it, it depends on the play...

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by cmathews
ok ok, I got my books out last nite...and although I don't really like it, both cases are interference...the kicking I can see more than the pass....and it also goes back to you have to be there, we know pass intereference when we see it, it depends on the play...

The kicking is easy to see. But the pass interference as descibed could go either way, that is, no offensive player has the right to "block" or contact a defensive player in an attempt to catch a pass but a defensive player cannot impede an offensive player from catching the ball.

You have to be there!

BTW. Offensive pass interference is a POE for NFHS this year. The coaches have been teaching it and we haven't been calling it.

[Theisey]

The intent of the question is to try to illustrate that Team-A would get an opportunity to free-kick for a field goal even though they have run a play since taking over the ball as a result of the KCI foul.
Personally, I doubt anyone will see this happen in their entire football career.

However, I'm a bit taken back that some responders really feel that team-B is committing DPI on the play.
In the Simplified and Illustrated manual, page 63, there is a case play where the Team-A player is standing there and the team-B player runs into him.
They say this is DPI and I agree.
But, rule 7-5-10-a equally applies to team-B as well, so just as it can go against team-B it can go against team-A.

Based on the bare bone words used to describe the play, I cannot agree that this is DPI. It's OPI to me. If you want to change the play to make it more a DPI, then so be it. But as it stands, this play goes against team-A.

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Theisey


Based on the bare bone words used to describe the play, I cannot agree that this is DPI. It's OPI to me. If you want to change the play to make it more a DPI, then so be it. But as it stands, this play goes against team-A.

Oh you think so do you? Well just who the heck came up with this play anyway dam it. I say DPI and I aint changing it! LOL 8^)

btw...your absoluty right. My intent was to illustrate that Team-A would get an opportunity to free-kick for a field goal. But any posting or play that generates discussion is a good one in my book. I’ll try to clean them up next time if I can. Thanks to all for the feed back. It’s great help for me to bounce this stuff around even if we disagree once in a while.