It does not have to make sense to you or me. I am just telling you what appears to be the reason this play ends when the ball gets into the EZ.

And really a punt going into the EZ is not much different from other levels, the play just continues a little while longer until the ball is downed. And the NF wants to kill the play and not let any unnecessary action take place. It is really a minor difference on scrimmage kicks. The free kick classification is just similar I am sure to not make one part of the kicking drastically different.

Also not many teams try to recover a punt inside the 10 yard line on a punt. On a punt as well teams are not running at each other for several yards without some resistance on a scrimmage kick. Heck, the NFL and NCAA moved their FK line to prevent more kick off returns. I do not see the NF changing this anytime soon.

Peace

This one is actually a good one and supported by statistics. The rate of catastrophic injury is markedly higher on these types of plays.

The hand to hand snap makes it almost instantaneous. From shotgun or pistol allows offense to attempt deception which goes around the rule exception for IFP. Also in that formation, B can pressure and then WH would be put in position of deciding if grounded pass was an intentional spike to stop clock or avoid sack.

Are you being intentionally obtuse?

Of course, there is no additional risk based on where the ball is caught. However, all long kick plays carry more risk than scrimmage plays. Injury statistics at every level bear this out. The more we can reduce the overall number of returns in the kicking game, the safer the game will be. Both the NCAA and the NFL have moved (marginally) closer to the NFHS in recent years, specifically due to increased risk on long kick plays. The NCAA changes on free kicks led to a significant change in touchback to return ratio (1 in 6 : 1 in 3). The NFL changes also lead to more touchbacks due to balls being kicked out of the end zone.

You're not going to see any changes allowing more returns at the NFHS level anytime soon. Not while all other codes are moving in Federation direction.

Because he could probably have even more easily made a legal tackle there.

What kind of deception can they try while the loose ball is moving backwards from the snapper? It's not as if they can do anything with it until the passer has it in his hands, and at that point he can do the same thing just as fast whether he got a handed snap or a thrown one.
That part makes sense.

But a more basic question is why team A should be allowed to delay the game by conserving time like this at all. But if that was the object of the rules makers, they could make it simpler by just telling the R "spike", and then you don't have to spot the ball again.

Agree. And I'm surprised there hasn't been some sentiment for doing away with kick returns entirely in FED.

Heck, in our pee-wee games we just spot the ball at the 35 on "kickoffs" and move it 30 yds on "punts".

I agree that's the rationale. I think also that ease of officiating the play is a consideration.

The Fed often writes rules to accommodate the lowest common denominator. It's much easier to say that when a kick breaks the plane, it is dead instead. Same thing with dead ball balks in baseball, etc.

Not saying I agree with it but that is their justification.

It's allowed at other levels. There's no reason it couldn't be allowed here, either.

I'd also allow a placekick holder to flip the ball to another player without raising from the ground -- as is legal in other levels.

The only difference in NCAA ball are kicks that either (1) are caught before they hit the ground or (2) are touched by R on the field of play.

I don't think there's a whole lot of safety added by killing kicks immediately as they cross the planes of goal lines, but I agree this isn't going to change anytime soon.

Fed instituted that during an era over which they put in several things that make the ball dead or prevent play. This one survives along with encroachment killing the RFP.

We can always offer plays to make our point. For example,

QB A12 is scrambling for his life. 15 yards behind the LOS, B78 is about to sack A12 when he's literally tackled by A56, enabling A12 to throw the ball away. If the rule was written as Rich suggested, we enforce the holding from the previous spot. Team A saves 5 yards on the play by committing the foul as well as getting the opportunity to replay the down.

Is that more equitable? No.

Rule changes are COACH driven for the most part.

Coaches do NOT want a 16 year old kid to have the option of

A- attempting to catch a kick in the end zone and possibly muffing it, allowing K to fall on it for a TD

or

B-making the decision to return a kick out of the end zone when 9 times out of 10, he's not going to make it to the 20 yard line.

Spiking the ball to stop the clock in this manner is an exception to the rule. What advantage would be gained by changing this rule? I don't see one.

Tim Tebow won't gave a chance to fumble the Q/C exchange.