It is as it reads- Article 3 is the NZ, Article 5 is the ENZ

Article 5 is to allow the touching in the ENZ to be ignored by linemen attempting to bat or block the kick. Without that you'd have 1st touching awfully close.

When any K player touches a scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone to R’s goal line


Why would K linemen be trying to bat the kick???


I don't get why one part of the rule says nz and another part says enz.

Because presumably K blockers may be actively blocking beyond the NZ, into the ENZ. And if a low kick hits one of K in the ENZ (presumably blocking) it is ignored and there is no first touching.

The first part (Art 3) is about advancing a kick. The latter (Art 5) is about touching a kick.

Article 5- My bad, thinking R. I'm thinking R batting a low scrimmage kick, the touching is ignored.

Principle is the same- kick glances off the back side of an oblivious K lineman before traveling on downfield. Pretty heavy price to pay to award first touching there to R at the LOS where it bounced off his yazz.

Article 3- Enables K to recover and advance, pass, or kick again during the down. It also enables them to retain possession, say on a blocked 3rd down FG attempt.

So if K recovers a kick (beyond the NZ) that hits a K player in the ENZ that would result in a first down say it was 4th and 1 it is not a first down but Rs ball, correct?

That is the only part I really think is a bit cloudy.

Its ignoring what would be first touching by K in the ENZ, otherwise.