Is this legal in NFHS?
 

Eastern Kentucky-Morehead State:

<iframe width="640" height="360" src="//www.youtube.com/embed/-a23JuEeitY?feature=player_embedded" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Provided that it was caught behind the NZ (very close), yes.

If beyond the NZ, then it would be a dead ball, R 1/10, and some risk of KCI (obstructing R's path to the kick).

Yep...

Provided the kick did was caught behind the NZ, the player could have passed it forward or even kicked it again.

Sorry Maven....

You beat me to the punch

Honestly, this play should have been ended at the moment of the catch - he was beyond the NZ, and HL should have caught that.

I don't think so, myself. LOS was the 40, he caught it at the 40. Unless he's clearly illegal, he's legal, IMO.

His first touch might have been at the forty, but possession was gained at the 41, IMO.

Were that the case, he'd be legal.

I just don't think that's the case. Looking at the LOS (and the stick), and then looking at where he gets the ball, I think he's ahead of that line.

I do admit it's not a perfect angle.

Is there a distinction in NCAA (or even NFHS) between first touching and second, third, etc?

The kick doesn't end until possessed by either team or the ball otherwise becomes dead. If A touches a kick (and adds a new force) behind the LOS then gains possession of the ball beyond the LOS, would the ball not be dead and be B's ball at the point possession was gained?

If this was a screen pass and linemen were 5 yards downfield, would you have flagged them for ineligible downfield? I wouldn't have.

I think he catches it behind the 40, which qualifies as in or behind the NZ. The ball has to cross the 40, not his foot.

He doesn't catch the ball behind the forty. He touches it, bobbles it and catches the ball, controls it at the 41.

We can agree to disagree.

When he actually comes down and makes the catch, I think it is close but the ball seems to be right on the 40 with his right leg at around the 41. Speaking NCAA any touching in or behind the neutral zone before the kick crosses the neutral zone is ignored.

That's what I see. If not clearly beyond, it's behind.

In NFHS is it the NZ or ENZ??

ART. 3 . . . Any K player may catch or recover a scrimmage kick while it is in
or behind the neutral zone and advance, unless it is during a try.


ART. 5 . . . When any K player touches a scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone to R’s goal line before it is touched beyond the neutral zone by R
and before the ball has come to rest, it is referred to as “first touching of the kick”
and the place is the “spot of first touching.” Such touching is ignored if it is
caused by R pushing or blocking K into contact with the ball.

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.