Whats your ruling? NCAA

[mtridge]

What are your thoughts on this play.

5. Following a TD, place kicker A49 is roughed during the successful try and Team A elects to enforce the 15 yard penalty on the succeeding kickoff. The kickoff from the 50 is high, muffed by R27 at the R-1 and rolls into his EZ. R 27 slips and falls, gets up and "hearing footsteps", panics and bats the loose ball over the end line. Ruling?

[Robert Goodman]

Neither team was in possession of the ball when the foul was committed, so 3-and-1 principles can't be applied, and this is a kick play, and the basic spot is the previous spot (50 yard line). Batting the ball from either end zone is a foul, so if the penalty is accepted team A/K may kick off from B/R 35 or decline the distance and kick from the 50. If the penalty is declined, possession is to B/R where it was muffed by B27, i.e. the 1 yard line. The choice to enforce or decline the penalty is not obvious.

The description doesn't read as if the impetus from the kickoff was spent before B27 muffed the ball, but if that's the case the result of the play would be a safety rather than B's ball at the 1.

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Neither team was in possession of the ball when the foul was committed, so 3-and-1 principles can't be applied, and this is a kick play, and the basic spot is the previous spot (50 yard line). Batting the ball from either end zone is a foul, so if the penalty is accepted team A/K may kick off from B/R 35 or decline the distance and kick from the 50. If the penalty is declined, possession is to B/R where it was muffed by B27, i.e. the 1 yard line. The choice to enforce or decline the penalty is not obvious.

The description doesn't read as if the impetus from the kickoff was spent before B27 muffed the ball, but if that's the case the result of the play would be a safety rather than B's ball at the 1.

That seems unnecessarily complicated.

I'd think that the logical answer would be that it's a safety.


Just giving the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the rule, not actually answering the question.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by hbk314

That seems unnecessarily complicated.

I'd think that the logical answer would be that it's a safety.


Just giving the perspective of someone unfamiliar with the rule, not actually answering the question.

The original impetus is not changed when a loose ball is batted or kicked in the end zone (8-7-2-b-1). Therefore, the original impetus is still the kick that put the ball in the end zone (8-7-2-a). The result of the play is a touchback. The act of batting the loose ball (in any direction) in the end zone is illegal (9-4-1-c).

If the penalty is accepted, it will be enforced 10-yards from the previous spot and A will re-kick at B-40.
If the penalty is not accepted, B will put the ball in play at the 25-yard line.

At least that's what I've got...

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

The original impetus is not changed when a loose ball is batted or kicked in the end zone (8-7-2-b-1). Therefore, the original impetus is still the kick that put the ball in the end zone (8-7-2-a). The result of the play is a touchback. The act of batting the loose ball (in any direction) in the end zone is illegal (9-4-1-c).

If the penalty is accepted, it will be enforced 10-yards from the previous spot and A will re-kick at B-40.
If the penalty is not accepted, B will put the ball in play at the 25-yard line.

At least that's what I've got...

Makes more sense now. Thanks.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

The original impetus is not changed when a loose ball is batted or kicked in the end zone (8-7-2-b-1). Therefore, the original impetus is still the kick that put the ball in the end zone (8-7-2-a). The result of the play is a touchback. The act of batting the loose ball (in any direction) in the end zone is illegal (9-4-1-c).

If the penalty is accepted, it will be enforced 10-yards from the previous spot and A will re-kick at B-40.
If the penalty is not accepted, B will put the ball in play at the 25-yard line.

At least that's what I've got...

I got the distance of the penalty for batting wrong, and forgot that muffing the ball into one's own end zone doesn't work like the momentum provision, but how do you get B putting the ball in play from the 25 for a touchback?

[APG]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I got the distance of the penalty for batting wrong, and forgot that muffing the ball into one's own end zone doesn't work like the momentum provision, but how do you get B putting the ball in play from the 25 for a touchback?

NCAA rule change...touchbacks go to the 25 off a free kick.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

I got the distance of the penalty for batting wrong, and forgot that muffing the ball into one's own end zone doesn't work like the momentum provision, but how do you get B putting the ball in play from the 25 for a touchback?

Because that's the touchback rule, as of 2012.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by APG

NCAA rule change...touchbacks go to the 25 off a free kick.

Is it resulting so far in fewer being run back? Or fewer being kicked deep?

I'd think if they wanted to see an effect they'd've changed it by more than 5 yds., or it may be so subtle as to be hard to evaluate. Like they did for the 2 yrs. they made it a 30 yd. touchback for free kicks directly over the end line.

[InsideTheStripe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Is it resulting so far in fewer being run back? Or fewer being kicked deep?

I'd think if they wanted to see an effect they'd've changed it by more than 5 yds., or it may be so subtle as to be hard to evaluate. Like they did for the 2 yrs. they made it a 30 yd. touchback for free kicks directly over the end line.

The rule went into effect the same year they moved the free kick line from the 30 to the 35. The combination of the two did lead to a significant increase in the number of touchbacks.

The year before the rule changes 15.2% of free kicks resulted in touchbacks. The year the rules went into effect there was an increase to 34.8%.

You can find more info here.

[Rich]

I can't remember a single kickoff in the last 2 years that's been returned past the 40. About half are touchbacks, if not more -- and this is at the D3 level.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by InsideTheStripe

The rule went into effect the same year they moved the free kick line from the 30 to the 35. The combination of the two did lead to a significant increase in the number of touchbacks.

The year before the rule changes 15.2% of free kicks resulted in touchbacks. The year the rules went into effect there was an increase to 34.8%.

You can find more info here.

Very interesting, thanks. I wonder if comparable stats exist for Football Canada's rule change with exactly the opposite object: to encourage running kickoffs back.

[Welpe]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Very interesting, thanks. I wonder if comparable stats exist for Football Canada's rule change with exactly the opposite object: to encourage running kickoffs back.

The NCAA has been trying to reduce injuries during kick offs which is why they also outlawed wedge blocking with more than 2 players.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Welpe

The NCAA has been trying to reduce injuries during kick offs which is why they also outlawed wedge blocking with more than 2 players.

And 4 on each side of the kicker during free kicks. And no more than a 5 yard running start for all non-kickers.

Lots of stuff to watch for these days...