Punt question
 

Its 4th and 10 from K's 40. K punts the ball downfield and the ball is rolling at R's 35 when K50 blocks R22 into the ball, the ball then ricochets away and strikes R15 in the leg. K17 then falls on the ball at R's 25 yard line.

Ruling???????

I might be a little rusty but.....
 

NF Ruling.

K's ball on R's 25 yard line.

The first touching by R was forced touching and is ignored but the second touch is not, so you give the ball to K.

Peace

NFHS 6-2-4 regarding scrimmage kicks, contains the same language as 6-1-6 relating to free kicks regarding "forced touching". It seems clear the intent of both is NOT to allow K to gain an advantage by forcing R into contact with the ball, so as to allow K to maintain possession after recovering the loose ball resulting from the forced touching.

As you descrbe this play, K50's block clearly forced R22 into the ball and the force of that collision propelled the ball into touching R15. As you describe it, I would consider the touching by R15 to also be a direct result of the forced contact initiated by K50 on R22 and therefore ignored, giving R possession of the ball where it was possessed by K17, ending the kick and the play.

I'm going to agree with JRut on this play. If R15 did not want to touch the ball he should not have been anywhere near it. R22 was exonerated because he was blocked into the ball but R15 is not so lucky. It's no different than a ball taking an unexpected bounce or the ball hitting an R player because he wasn't looking.

My understanding of "forced touching" has always been as a result the individual being blocked, not someone else. Now if there is some case play that supports that I would retract my original opinion, but that is not my understanding of the interpretation of how these plays are to be ruled.

Peace

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.

The rules makers could simplify these situations by deeming forced touching to be touching by the side that did the forcing. As it stands, however, I can't credit ajmc's interpret'n. When you hear the "poison" call, you should run away.

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

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.

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

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

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

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!

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

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.

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?

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."

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.

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

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

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.

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.

Every rule is not going to cover every single situation or scenario. There is no situation that even suggests in any interpretation what you are saying. You are taking it further than even the rules or interpretation allows.

You are still taking about a rules dispute where on the field this would not apply to that rule. A Referee would rarely if ever be judging any first touching or any of these kinds of plays. So not sure where the Referee is going to be making any decision as it relates to this rule. The wings, back judge and even the umpire have potential much more to be involved then a Referee that is furthest from the play. I do not know how the Referee is even going to be able to give any information related to this play and say if or when a ball is touched, let alone if it is forced touching or not. The Referee cannot also overrule anyone's judgment. That rule is to cover a situation that is brought to their attention and likely needs administrative action. Like what is player might be allowed to wear or what might take place to start a contest with an interruptions. Rules do not cover all possible scenarios in those areas, that is likely where this rule will come into play, not some situation in which you are trying to define something that is already defined.

Peace

There is no situation that even suggests in any interpretation what you are saying. You are taking it further than even the rules or interpretation allows.

Forgive me, I thought this was a hypothetical question leading to a discussion, I never got a copy of the memo appointing you Grand Pupa in charge of deciding, "how far the rules, or interpretations, are allowed to go. If you have reasoning beyond, "Because you said so", please share it, I'd like to consider it.

A Referee would rarely if ever be judging any first touching or any of these kinds of plays. So not sure where the Referee is going to be making any decision as it relates to this rule.

I never intended to suggest the Referee would be asked about his version of what actually happened, likely being far removed from the downfield action, but some Referees expect to be kept abreast of exceptional calls in the event there might be questions, and might even provide useful advice.

The Referee cannot also overrule anyone's judgment.

Strange, I don't recall reading anywhere that the Referee was prevented from reviewing judgment calls. Although it's certainly not an every day matter, I thought the second sentence of 1-1-6, "The Referee's decisions are final in ALL MATTERS pertaining to the game", actually meant "ALL MATTERS", and a quality Referee might be able to add some valuable input to the discussion that would persuade the covering official to rethink the original call.

not some situation in which you are trying to define something that is already defined.

I thought the fact that this particular scenario is NOT defined, is what raises it as a question, intended to open a iscussion.

You can do what you want, but you are alone in this interpretation here. And I have never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting. And I am a person that has for years been a back judge or deep wing and never heard anyone suggest the rule applies the way you are doing here. I would think at some point someone other than you would make this argument, but they have not.

Just stating the ruling would long be made before they got involved. This would be a tape review issue or a discussion in the locker room, but not where this rule would likely be involked.

But this is a judgment call, just based on your explaination of "your" interpretation. You never explained how far we take a touch to subsequent touches (which there is no rules support for). So wouldn't this situation be based on judgment? Not sure where the actual rule would come into play even with the definition that is stated. I would think you would have to rule when a touch is "forced" or not forced.

I do not think this is as unclear as you stated. You just are looking for specifics for a hypothtical that the rule was not intended for IMO. And it appears no one else but you are having this issue. And I did discuss this with others to see if I was crazy or missing something and have yet anyone to suggest your interpretation applies to the actual rule or intent of the rule.

Peace

This was a "sample question" about something I don't know that ever has happened, anywhere and certainly never to me. Why then, would you be surprised, "never heard a single person at any level suggest what you are suggesting", it's likely it never happened anywhere to anyone.

Yes, I am looking for specifics, regarding the logic and intent of the written rule, we all can refer to, but agree doesn't extend to, relate to or explain, this situation.

Why should I care that, "no one else but you are having this issue"? I don't have an issue, I'm suggesting a consideration for a previously unasked/unanswered question. If you disagree with my suggestion, fine, I've got no argument with that, but if you're trying to persuade me, you need to provide a little more than, "because I said so".

I know it's not stated in the rule, I know the verbiage used only applies to that initial forced contact, but does it make sense that a secondary contact, which as described, sounds as entirely the responsibility of K as the initial forced contact, should be ignored? If so, why?

Does the fact that, it sounds, like the 2nd contact by R, was caused ENTIRELY by K, extend the logic of the rule that R is not, nor should be, held responsible for an action caused ENTIRELY by K, which is exactly the logic applied to relieving R of the responsibility of the initial contact.

If you don't think that logic extends, OK, but why. It seems to me it's reasonable that it should, but as I've stated I would have to see exactly what happened to be absolutely sure that R2 had absolutely nothing to do with him touching, or being touched by, the deflected ball.

If R2 was standing close to the collision by K1 and R1 which caused the ball to be deflected into R2, as opposed to being some distance away, the opportunity, or lack thereof, to avoid touching the ball would be a factor.

How far away? I don't know, it first needs to be established if that matters. Should it?

If you don't want to bother questioning the logic and purpose behind this rule, fine, don't bother with it and go with the language that exists.

This is not a "look up the answer" situation, because an answer doesn't exist, and there is no official right or wrong. It seems a lot more like an opportunity to discuss the intent and purpose of the rule and see where that discussion might lead.

ajmc,

Do whatever your local association, crew or area allows.

If you are looking for answers, you have been given them by many here. If you do not want to accept them and think there is something more, then use that logic that works for you. No one here is really likely to work with you or have much to say over what games you get or do not get. Same applies to me if I have an interpretation or philosophy.

Do what you see fit. Not much reason to keep debating what is clearly there in my mind. If it is not in your mind, then do what you need to do. I just think that is not the intent of the rule and will not rule accordingly.

Peace

Standard Rut answer.

Yes it is. That is what everyone should do and not necessarily listen to anyone here if they choose not to agree with them.

Last time I checked no one here hires others on this board as a general statement. So do what works in your local area as those are the people that will praise you or admonish you for your choices.

Peace

Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

I don't believe there is any rule support to say touching by an R player is ignored because another R player was blocked into the ball by an opponent. The exception only applies to the guy blocked into the ball. That seems pretty clear to me. Plus the sound philosophy I've heard is the block of the R player into the ball had better be a signficant block where he completely loses control of his body. That makes even that call a very unlikely one.

Well if that is the case, it shows how little I pay attention on this site. I was under the impression he was an official. Sounds like another guy trying to debate a rule they are not experienced in actually ajudicating on a regular basis. This statement is duly noted.

Peace

I agree with you on that one. The side the other guy is taken that this is an "uncovered" area of the rules could be argued about any specific play situation. Like, the rules don't say anything about someone's faking a pass, resulting in an opponent's making illegal use of hands, so the silence about such a case is an excuse to rule it as...?
That far I wouldn't take it. I'd go for any situation in which contact with the opponent causes the player of R to move (not to fail to move) in a way that leads to contact occurring between him and the ball that wouldn't've occurred at all otherwise. So if R1 is blocking K1 and the ball bounces backwards and hits R1 in the back, don't ignore the touching unless K1 caused R1 to move into the ball's path rather than just keeping him from moving out of its path. Otherwise players of R could block players of K near the ball with complete impunity while trying to keep them from downing the ball.

[QUOTE=bisonlj;900292]Keep in mind you are debating with a clock operator. He doesn't have to make this call on the field.

One of the dangers of writing, or speaking, words without filtering them through a rational thought process is that you make yourself sound like a petty fool, pathetically deparate to make yourself sound important.

I have no way of knowing how games at different levels are serviced where you work Mr. bisonlj, nor am I all that interested, but I was, thankfully taught to know better than mouth off about something I know nothing about. The 40+ years I've had the pleasure of spending on football fields, at multiple levels, before moving to the press box, has given me some insight, a lot of continuing interest and the knowledge that, as much as I may have thought I learned, it's likely a lot less than I can yet understand.

Being resigned to enjoy the back side of the mountain, I can tell you that accepting the status of "has been", despite all it's limitations, is far more enjoyable than being a "never was", which is where a lot of people who find it necessary to try and blow smoke up their pants, trying to sound important by denegrating others, more often than not, usually wind up.

[QUOTE=ajmc;900448]Point taken. I succumbed to the idiocy that is the anonymous world of the internet. I am sorry. But will you please do me one favor? Will you please learn how to properly use a comma? I know we don't always have perfect grammar, spelling or punctuation but I have a hard time taking you seriously when all I can see is commas.

We should be able to learn from anyone, if we can first accept disagreeing without being disagreeable.

Agreed. Fixed it for ya.