Punt question

[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

[bisonlj]

One philosophy I've heard (more at the NCAA level but also at the HS level) is in order to rule the player was blocked into the ball and thus absolved of touching, he needs to almost be picked up and dropped on the ball. Just because he's engaged in a block and touches the ball doesn't mean he was blocked into it. Get away from the ball if you don't want to touch it. He's not absolved if he's by himself and doesn't realize the ball is coming down on him.

Using this philosophy I lean toward the second touching by R to be a legitimate touching by R. Get away from the ball! Far far away!

[CT1]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Does the rulebook use the term "impetus?"

No, the rule book uses the term "force". See CB 8.3.3.A (2012).

im·pe·tus (mp-ts)
n. pl. im·pe·tus·es
1. An impelling force; an impulse.
2. The force or energy associated with a moving body

[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

[grounder]

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.


this isnt an opinion..its the rule

[Robert Goodman]

I'm trying to imagine a situation in which K1's contact with R1 causes the ball to bounce off R1 so differently from the way it might've bounced off the ground as to put R2 at a disadvantage. If R2 wants to avoid contact with the ball, the distance and direction R2 goes in, if it isn't sufficient to avoid a deflection off R1, isn't sufficient, period.

Why is R1 in position to be contacted by K1? Really only a couple of reasons. R1 could be blocking to set up a runback, or to prevent K1 from downing the ball close to R's goal line. In the second case, other players of R would treat the ball as poison because they want the ball to bounce over their goal line. In the first case, other players of R might decide the ball was poison or might still be trying to run it back. If they were trying to gain possession of the ball, they're taking their chance on a deflection regardless of whether R1 or K1 is nearby. If they were trying to get away from the ball, the consideration in the 1st para. is in effect.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by grounder

this isnt an opinion..its the rule

Unless I missed something, grounder, the rule does NOT address this very specific, very hypothetical sample play. My opinion is based on my interpretation of the intent of the rule, you are referring to, as well as my understanding of the intent and purpose of this rule, which I've previously stated. As I tried to suggest, there are a series of "if's" included in the assessment I suggested that apply, to this particular and unique play.

If you don't agree with my assessment, that's fine. As always you should follow your own thoughtful assessment based on what you've actually seen and what you understand is the intent and/or purpose of the rule. You might keep in mind, that an overarching function of our role is when very specific corcumstances are NOT covered by the wording of a rule, our objective as stated in 1-1-6 is to, "rule promptly , and in the spirit of good sportsmanship" to avoid either team gaining, or suffering, from an unearned advantage.

Mr. Rutledge, I specified "the Referee" in my reference to NF 1-1-6 because that's exactly what "the rule" states. I would expect any Referee I was working with to accept my judgment unless, and until, he has sound and persuasive reason to convince me my judgment was in err. However, as the rule specifically states "the Referee" I would consider it my responsibility to explain, and if necessary persuade, the Referee to concur with my judgment.