Punt question

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

I don't think we're going to see this exact play in the Case Book for reference any time soon, so it's likely going to be a matter of judgment based on a unique situation.

R15 may well have gotten safely away from the loose ball until
K50 knocked R22 into it, possibly redirecting and propelling the ball at R15, we don't know. It might make a difference, in judgment, whether R15 was really close to the contact between K50 and R22, or far enough away that he coulda/shoulda avoided being contacted by the ball.

6-2-4 seems pretty clear that the "idea" is to exempt R from being touched by the loose ball when K is responsible for what happens. That seems like a judgment call by the covering official who will have the opportunity to respond to exactly what he sees.

I agree that we are not likely going to see an interpretation officially that suggests what you are saying. But I think that reasoning is more about they never envisioned that a "double hit" would be interpreted as part of that language. I think it is a stretch to suggest that we are to ignore or interpret what touch after what is described as forced touching takes place and what is considered to be ignored. I think the rule is clear on this and rather consistent in how they have described these situations to be handled.

Peace

[ajmc]

The closest Case Book reference I can find is Situation 4, NFHS 6.2, where KI and RI are blocking dowfield as a kick is loose. K2 legally bats the ball into the preoccupided R1. The ruling is the touching (being touched by R1) is ignored following the logic of the rule that K2 is responsible for the motion that propelled the ball into R1.

In the sample play, it suggests that K50, in effect used R22 (legally blocking him into the loose ball) as the means of providing the motion to propell the loose ball into R15. Since R22 is unquestionably relieved of the responsibility of redirecting the movement of the ball, as his contact with it is ignored, the responsibility remains with K50, also absolving R15 of that accidental contact.

It seems the clear intent of NFHS 6-2-5 is to absolve R of the responsibility of touching the loose ball when the touching is a direct resuly of action caused by K.

[JRutledge]

Well that play you reference is not the play we are discussing. This is a ricochet after a forced touching. I do not think the rules go that far to absolve R from touching a ball. And if that is the case, how far away to we consider them to be not responsible for a touch? Two yards? Five yards? Twenty yards?

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Well that play you reference is not the play we are discussing. This is a ricochet after a forced touching. I do not think the rules go that far to absolve R from touching a ball. And if that is the case, how far away to we consider them to be not responsible for a touch? Two yards? Five yards? Twenty yards?

As mentioned above, this is a judgment call on the part of the covering official. Same as judging whether a muffed fumble would have gone into the EZ on its own without the muff.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

As mentioned above, this is a judgment call on the part of the covering official. Same as judging whether a muffed fumble would have gone into the EZ on its own without the muff.

I do not think this is so much of a judgment call as what the rule allows or suggest should be called. If they have defined forced touching, then if that is what we rule. It is hard to suggest that every other contact with the ball applies when the definition does not suggest clearly what has been said here as applying.

Peace

[CT1]

Same principle. Would have the ball touched R15 without K50's impetus?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CT1

Same principle. Would have the ball touched R15 without K50's impetus?

Does the rulebook use the term "impetus?"

If not then that is a stretch. I am sure I will discuss this situation with others as a way to see what they think, but I doubt seriously they will simply agree with your assessement of this play. It is one thing to bat the ball towards someone on purpose and to be hit as a result of being near the ball when you should not be.

Peace

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

how far away to we consider them to be not responsible for a touch? Two yards? Five yards? Twenty yards? Peace

I'm a believer "one size fits all", only serves to remove judgment and the application of common sense from the decision process. This is a play I'd likely have to see, to make my best effort at reaching the right conclusion. I wouldn't want to give an unfair, unearned advantge to K, nor deprive R of a possession because of an action they were not responsible for.

[grounder]

being blocked into the ball only relieves the blockee of being considered to have touched the ball. any resulting touching is not ignored. even first touching by K can still be applied after the forced blocking. that being said, if first touching by K can still be applied, why wouldnt we apply touching by R?

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by grounder

being blocked into the ball only relieves the blockee of being considered to have touched the ball. any resulting touching is not ignored.

Your above assessment, and interpretation, is a valid opinion that would, and should, apply to the vast majority of related circumstances, however it is an opinion and an assessment of what is actually seen applied to your interpretation of NF 6-2-4.

6-2-4, seems to clearly suggest that the "cause" of an action, by a player of one team, should not cause the opponent to suffer a consequence they bear no responsibility for, which is why the judgment of the covering official is dependent on his specific observations.

As this very unique, hypothetical situation is, "not specifically covered in the rules", NF 6-1-6 provides for "authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship on any situation not specifically covered in the rules.", and as always, "The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Your above assessment, and interpretation, is a valid opinion that would, and should, apply to the vast majority of related circumstances, however it is an opinion and an assessment of what is actually seen applied to your interpretation of NF 6-2-4.

6-2-4, seems to clearly suggest that the "cause" of an action, by a player of one team, should not cause the opponent to suffer a consequence they bear no responsibility for, which is why the judgment of the covering official is dependent on his specific observations.

Seems to? I think that is your interpretation based on you are just about the only person making the leap that touching the ball based on this definition leads to other touching to be apart of that same definition. Sorry, but that is a big leap when in other cases there are interpretations that suggest otherwise.

Originally Posted by ajmc

As this very unique, hypothetical situation is, "not specifically covered in the rules", NF 6-1-6 provides for "authority to rule promptly, and in the spirit of good sportsmanship on any situation not specifically covered in the rules.", and as always, "The referee's decisions are final in all matters pertaining to the game."

Well that is great, but the Referee is not making these decisions in the first place. And if I rule this as a Back Judge my Referee better not have much idea what actually happened or see the play at all. So not sure what this reference has to do with this issue?

Peace