Punt question

[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