snap over punters head----safety?
 

We had a situation the other night where the snap went over the punters head and into the endzone. What would be the ruling on each of these plays? By the way I am a coach wanting to make sure our punter handles this situation correctly.
a) punter kicks the ball out of the back of the endzone
b) punter scoops or bats the ball out of the back of the endzone
c) punter grabs the ball and throws or tosses the ball out of the back of the endzone.

What would be the call on each? Is there any other situation that would cause us to be penalized in this situation. Thanks a bunch.

All three of those actions would result in a safety. If your punter recovers the snap and is tackled or takes a knee in the end zone, that would also result in a safety.

We got into the discussion that there might be a penalty if our punter grabbed the ball and threw it out of the end zone. I do not know the rule so that is why I am here. Could that be a possibility of HOW the punter got the ball out of the endzone to take a safety where it might be a penalty.

Last year, I witnessed scenario a) in an NCAA D3 game. The referee threw the flag for the illegal kick, which on that play didn't matter because the end result was the same...safety.

The only reason I mention it is because I would think that if the defense were to be penalized during the down as well, the illegal kick would have created an offsetting penalty situation instead of yardage (and possibly a first down) for the kicking team.

There are plenty - the enforcement of all of which is ... a safety. Of course, they could decline the penalty, which would result in ... a safety.

Under NFHS rules, these are all a safety because:

1. A forced the ball across the goal line (the snap), and
2. The ball subsequently became dead in the EZ (never reentered the field of play).

The fact that some of the causes of 2 might also be fouls in the EZ is a redundant cause of a safety.

It's only Canadian football where it comes out different in case a, but not as a result of a penalty since it's not illegal. However, it leaves the other team with options so you'd be better off there by killing the ball in your possession or throwing it out.

Under NCAA rules, all 3 result in a safety. Technically, A and B are illegal and should be flagged, however, the result of the penalty is the same.

The interesting thing is that these fouls have loss of down penalties. So if they occurred on the 1 yard line rather than the end zone on 4th down, Team B could accept the penalty rather than the safety and put the ball in play. This is why the flag needs to be thrown -- to illustrate the foul occurred in the end zone rather than the field of play, in case its close.

On the other hand, don't give the defense a cheap 1 yard line possession. If you can put this in the end zone and give them a safety, do so. If it happens at the 4, there's nothing you can do other than put the flag there.

I can understand that if you're actually in doubt as to where the kicking or batting occurred, but not if you actually saw it in the field of play. Rather than negligently kicking or batting the ball, the team A player may have done so to prevent a B recovery when the A player was not in position to make the recovery first, so why allow them to benefit by the illegal play?

Robert - I believe the point was not to lie, but if you don't KNOW, to err on the side of safety. Consider the coverage on this play, you have ONE official in position for this, and it's possible, due to the nature of the play, that he doesn't have a perfect down-the-line angle that you would on nearly any other goal line play. (Even more so with only 3 officials). You're right that if you see the ball clearly on the one, and it's clear that the INTENT of the player was to commit an illegal act to avoid the easy TD, you have to penalize it.

If your objective is to teach a punter what to do if he's in this position, probably the best thing is to tell him to scoop up the ball. If he can't turn around and punt it safely, then THROW it out the back of the end zone. It's a backwards pass, and is perfectly legal. And don't be shy about throwing it, either. Heave that sucker into the parking lot!

In what way is that better? Same result.

There's no penalty for illegal [action], which means if B commits a foul, then A gets the option to accept the foul and possibly keep the ball, or at least replay the down without snapping the ball over the kicker's head.

If the kick takes place in the EZ, it's a safety whether the opponent accepts or declines the penalty. That was the situation in the OP, but perhaps you're changing the subject?

Also, your first post suggests you want the punter to throw the ball away, so A is fouling and B would have an "option."

I think jchamp is proposing that instead of kicking the ball on the ground, the better play is to pick the ball up and either a) punt if not under pressure or b) throw a backwards pass out of the end zone.

He's proposing that while b) is still a safety, it is not a penalty which would afford A an opportunity to replay the down if B fouled during it.

I don't know if he's correct in his assessment of the result or not.

Wasn't that my point in post #4?

That was precisely my point. If B fouls during the down, A has the opportunity that comes from it. The best that can happen if A fouls is they replay the down just as it was, 4th & whatever. If A does not foul, the best that can happen is B fouls and the result of the enforcement is 1st down. It's pretty simple, if you can avoid committing a foul, you do so. There are very few situations in which the result of fouling is preferable to not fouling. This is not one of them.

Snap over punters head... safety
 

This actually happened TWICE in our game last night in Georgia.

First play: Snap over punters head. Punter kicks ball out of the EZ from the 3 yd line. Flag on play for illegal kicking. Result: Safety with no option to decline penalty.

Second Play: Snap over punters head. Punter scoops ball at the 2 yd line and throws out of the back of the EZ with his plant foot inside the one. Flag on play for intentional grounding. Result: Safety... again with no option to decline penalty.

Were these calls correct?

Intentional grounding because?????

Exactly. The ball was thrown backwards from the field of play through the end zone. Nevertheless, grounding was the call from the white hat. We should have been able to decline, right?

1. Enforcement seems incorrect: if the foul occurred in the field of play, the penalty is not a safety, though the result of the play is. Your options should have been accept (half the distance from the spot of the kick, replay the down) or a decline (result of the play was a safety).

2. I'd have to know more to assess whether that's a good IG call. If the passer was in the field of play when he committed the foul, the penalty is not a safety, though the result of the play is. If that was the case, your options should have been: accept (half the distance from the spot of the foul, LOD), or decline (safety). OTOH, if the foul occurred in the EZ, again you'd have an option between a safety or a safety.

Correct for Play 1.

Play #2 is not IG. It's simply a backwards pass, which is treated as a fumble in NFHS rules.

One of the things I'd have to know is whether it was NFHS rules. ;)

Well, he said it happened in Georgia.

Both are wrong.

First play: Illegal kick.
Accept the penalty: Replay the down from the 1 1/2 yard line.
Decline the penalty: Safety.

Second play: Legal play, safety. No option.

Not true. Foul occurs at the 3 yard line.

There is no foul. You can't have IG on a backwards pass. Legal play.

This statement is correct for NFHS rules. It's a fair assumption that the OP was using NFHS rules, but only an assumption. So it's worth recognizing that under other rules, a backwards pass CAN be IG.

#1, the play occurred on a Friday night in Georgia. I don't think it's much of an assumption that this game was played under NFHS rules.

#2, I'm dying to know under what rules can intentional grounding be called on a backwards pass?

In #2 not only is your call incorrect, the choices given to R, given the call, were also incorrect. By calling (incorrectly) IG, you now have the option of R declining and taking the safety, or accepting the penalty from the 2 half the distance to the goal, plus loss of down, which would give R the ball first and ten from the one. It's a good thing you didn't offer them the correct choices. That would have been an egregious error.

Pretty sure Wolverine is not an official.

So he was the one receiving the wrong information, not handing it out? I feel better for him already.

#2 - In NCAA a backwards pass thrown out of bounds to conserve time is a foul. 5 yards spot of foul, loss of down.

It's not really called intentional grounding in the book, although it is enforced as such.

Yep, I'm aware of that.

But the punter in Wolverine's play who threw the ball out of the back of the end zone wasn't doing so to conserve time.

So I'm waiting to find out what rules code is used in a Friday night football game in Georgia that says this play is intentional grounding. ;)

1. The OP didn't state the rule set, so it's an assumption. Good, fair, or "not much" of an assumption if you like.

2. NCAA A.R. 3-4-3 III: throwing a backwards pass out of bounds in order to conserve time is penalized as IG (even though not technically defined as IG).

I never said it was. Clearly, the officials in that game were a bit rule-challenged.

Maven, you wrote:

Under no rule set would IG be the appropriate call. The play is perfectly legal under NFHS, NCAA and NFL rules.

I didn't say you did.

I was referring to the poster above.

Fair enough: you're correct that the IG call in the OP was bad. I knew that NCAA had a provision prohibiting a backwards pass in some situations, and mistakenly thought that might apply here.

The remainder of my post concerning enforcement was correct, as you omitted to point out.

No live ball foul by B, safety on A whether they commit a live ball foul or not.
Live ball foul by B and no foul by A; enforce penalty for live ball foul by B (no safety).
Live ball foul by A and live foul by B should result in off-setting fouls and a replay of down.

So the best thing to teach the kicker, assuming he can't legally kick ball into field of play is to backward pass such that it goes out of bounds in the end zone. No live ball foul if the kicker muffs his attempt to gain possession and the ball goes out of bounds in the end zone, but this relies on judgment by the covering official.

There has been mention of picking up and throwing it out of th EZ. But what about batting? Would batting a loose ball backward and out of th EZ be a foul?

Rule 9-7-2 No player shall bat a loose ball other than a pass or a fumble in flight, or a low scrimmage kick in flight which he is attempting to block in or behind the expanded neutral zone.

Exceptions listed deal with batting scrimmage kicks, which this is not. So yes, it would be illegal batting.