NFHS: wrong type of free kick

[Robert Goodman]

This arises from the "kick play" thread as a consequence of how Fed now defines kicks.

In NCAA the interpret'ns specifically say that if a disallowed type of kick is used for a free kick, or the ball is kicked from a side zone, the ball is allowed to become live, and it's treated as a foul as the ball becomes live. But what about Fed? Suppose K1 punts the ball when it's RFP via kickoff, or tries some funky technique that wouldn't produce a legal kick under any circumstance, such as rolling the ball on the ground and kicking it. Because of the way Fed now defines its kicks, neither would be a "free kick", so the ball would remain dead. But would you whistle immediately for "delay of game" because of this being "action which prevents promptness in putting the ball in play"? Or would you say the 25 sec. clock is still running, and allow team K to retrieve the ball if possible to do legally (say if it stayed on their side of the neutral zone, as a funky technique might very well result) and still put it in play legally? It would seem team R would be very likely to be induced to thinking the ball had been put in play whenever someone of K toes it, so a whistle for any excuse would seem prudent.

Does the case book have anything on this?

[maven]

Case book has nothing, as the probability of it happening is vanishingly small.

If I saw them setting up to do something weird, I'd kill it and fix it. If I couldn't prevent it, I'd flag DOG, explain the problem, and then flag the HC for UNS if they did it again.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Never really thought of it, but the Fed rule book does address it implicitly, saying "A down is action which starts with a legal snap (beginning a
scrimmage down) or when the ball is kicked on a free kick (beginning a free-kick down)." So if they illegally kick the ball, it's not (by definition) the beginning of a down. So you can't let it just go on. One might point to the words "...or when the ball is kicked on a free kick..," and question this as a possible ambiguity. But a "free kick" is defined in such a way that it must be a legal kick. Question is...what would you do after you shut it down?

[ump33]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Never really thought of it, but the Fed rule book does address it implicitly, saying "A down is action which starts with a legal snap (beginning a
scrimmage down) or when the ball is kicked on a free kick (beginning a free-kick down)." So if they illegally kick the ball, it's not (by definition) the beginning of a down. So you can't let it just go on. One might point to the words "...or when the ball is kicked on a free kick..," and question this as a possible ambiguity. But a "free kick" is defined in such a way that it must be a legal kick. Question is...what would you do after you shut it down?

I believe 2-24-3 defines a Legal Free Kick as is any legal kick that is used to put the ball in play. It does not state only a Legal Free Kick may put the ball in play.

Take a look at 2-24-9, it defines a Illegal Kick as kick that does not comply with 2-24-3. It also states if the ball is loose following an Illegal Kick, it is treated as a fumble. If the ball is loose and treated as a fumble, it must be live.

I think we flag it, let the play continue and enforce from the previous spot if accepted

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Never really thought of it, but the Fed rule book does address it implicitly, saying "A down is action which starts with a legal snap (beginning a
scrimmage down) or when the ball is kicked on a free kick (beginning a free-kick down)." So if they illegally kick the ball, it's not (by definition) the beginning of a down. So you can't let it just go on.

That's non sequitur, depending on what you mean by "it". Seems a literal reading of the rules would simply be that the dead ball "goes on" as it had before the ball was kicked.

One might point to the words "...or when the ball is kicked on a free kick..," and question this as a possible ambiguity. But a "free kick" is defined in such a way that it must be a legal kick. Question is...what would you do after you shut it down?

I can't think of anything other than delay of game, for the reason I stated above: the likelihood that team B would think the ball was in play, therefore a delay caused by team A's action.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ump33

I believe 2-24-3 defines a Legal Free Kick as is any legal kick that is used to put the ball in play. It does not state only a Legal Free Kick may put the ball in play.

Take a look at 2-24-9, it defines a Illegal Kick as kick that does not comply with 2-24-3. It also states if the ball is loose following an Illegal Kick, it is treated as a fumble. If the ball is loose and treated as a fumble, it must be live.

I think we flag it, let the play continue and enforce from the previous spot if accepted

You have a point.

But I think the real point is that Fed is overstuffing Rule 2, putting too many things into definitions when they'd really be more comfortably handled as substantive provisions. Rule 2 has gotten very big in recent decades compared to other numbered Rules. Definitions are useful only to save repetition; you can practically use a computer program to determine which phrases recur and could benefit from being condensed into technical terms. Fed & NCAA have gone way beyond that.

Take for instance Fed's 2-3, "Blocking". It suffers from lack of parallelism because it includes language which is actually substantive, regarding permissions & prohibitions, rather than definitive. Sorry, Fed, arts. 2 thru 6 do not belong there, they belong in Rule 9. Same with 2-17 arts. 2 thru 4.

[ajmc]

There are infinitely more things NOT covered by NFHS rules than are actually covered, which is likely why NF: 1-1-6 was initiated. Thankfully, or not, the NFHS rules makers seem to trust and rely on the common sense, fairness and judgment of game officials, particularly the Referee, and have placed this absolute authority exclusively in the hands of Referees. rather than any other source.

Rather than engage in a never ending speculation about hypothetical sistuation that may, or may never, materialize, 1-1-6 provides a consistent remedy for dealing with circumstances unanticipated by rule makers. Rule makes, and game officials realize and accept that, although achieving absolute perfection is a laudable objective, it is an elusive and unreachable objective. Given such ultimate authority is a serious responsibility, and when necessary to apply should be given serious consideration.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I'm glad you brought up the most egregiously mis-worded rule in the Federation rule book (2-24-9): "When the ball is loose following an illegal kick, it is treated as a fumble." If you don't believe it, apply it to these plays:

(1) K's punt is rolling at R's 5. R12, sensing that it will be downed by K, kicks the ball which rolls into his end zone. K10 jumps on the loose ball.

(2) A's forward pass to A88 is low. B12 sticks his foot out and kicks the low pass. It lands on the ground where B5 recovers it.

Each play included an illegal kick. Treat the resulting loose ball as a fumble and see what you come up with.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by ajmc

There are infinitely more things NOT covered by NFHS rules than are actually covered, which is likely why NF: 1-1-6 was initiated. Thankfully, or not, the NFHS rules makers seem to trust and rely on the common sense, fairness and judgment of game officials, particularly the Referee, and have placed this absolute authority exclusively in the hands of Referees. rather than any other source.

Rather than engage in a never ending speculation about hypothetical sistuation that may, or may never, materialize, 1-1-6 provides a consistent remedy for dealing with circumstances unanticipated by rule makers. Rule makes, and game officials realize and accept that, although achieving absolute perfection is a laudable objective, it is an elusive and unreachable objective. Given such ultimate authority is a serious responsibility, and when necessary to apply should be given serious consideration.

But this is such an easily foreseeable situation that NCAA has had it in their Interpretations for decades.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: I'm glad you brought up the most egregiously mis-worded rule in the Federation rule book (2-24-9): "When the ball is loose following an illegal kick, it is treated as a fumble." If you don't believe it, apply it to these plays:

(1) K's punt is rolling at R's 5. R12, sensing that it will be downed by K, kicks the ball which rolls into his end zone. K10 jumps on the loose ball.

(2) A's forward pass to A88 is low. B12 sticks his foot out and kicks the low pass. It lands on the ground where B5 recovers it.

Each play included an illegal kick. Treat the resulting loose ball as a fumble and see what you come up with.

On 1, I suspect K is going to decline the penalty for illegal kick and take the ball (or the TD if it rolled INTO the endzone). On 2, I see the point you're making.

[Suudy]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

On 1, I suspect K is going to decline the penalty for illegal kick and take the ball (or the TD if it rolled INTO the endzone).

But this is the difficulty Bob is talking about. 2-24-2 says that a kick ends only when in player possession or when the ball becomes dead not in player possession. And a kick becomes dead as soon as it breaks the goal line (4-2-2d.1). So it can't be a TD.

But which is it? A safety or a TB? I think most of us have learned that a kick is a kick is a kick until it is no longer a kick. And the illegal kick by R, though a new force, does not change the status of the kick. And 6-3-1b says any scrimmage kick that breaks the plane of the goal is a touchback.

I'd go with TB on this. The basic spot is the 20, and the foul occurred at the 5, so we go 1st and 10 for R from the R 2 1/2.

[ajmc]

I think what you have is a basic choice. If there was a foul committed during a free kick, it's going to be a loose ball foul. The offended team has the standard choice; accept the foul or decline it and accept the result of the play.

A foul during the kick is a loose ball foul, since this kick would up breaking the plane of R's goal, it's a Touchback, if the penalty is declined it would be
1st/10 for R at the 20 YL. If the penalty is accepted, the basic spot is the previous spot, march the appropriate distance off against the offending team, and repeat the down.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The problem is that the Fed used a general statement about treating illegal kicks as fumbles when what they really meant is that an attempted scrimmage kick from beyond the NZ or a kick after a COP are treated as fumbles. That way, you don't apply legal kick rules to these two types of kick. Other illegal kicks of loose balls retain whatever status they had prior to the illegal kick. So illegally kicking a ball that is loose as a legal kick (my play #1) continues to be treated as a legal kick--not a fumble. So when it crosses R's goal ine, of course it's a touchback. Likewise, illegally kicking a forward pass in flight (my play #2) is still treated as a forward pass--not a fumble. So when it hits the ground, it's dead as an incomplete pass.

This is one of the reasons why the NCAA distinguishes between an illegal kick and illegally kicking a loose ball. I tried to get this changed in Fed without any luck.

[ump33]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: I'm glad you brought up the most egregiously mis-worded rule in the Federation rule book (2-24-9): "When the ball is loose following an illegal kick, it is treated as a fumble." If you don't believe it, apply it to these plays:

(1) K's punt is rolling at R's 5. R12, sensing that it will be downed by K, kicks the ball which rolls into his end zone. K10 jumps on the loose ball.

(2) A's forward pass to A88 is low. B12 sticks his foot out and kicks the low pass. It lands on the ground where B5 recovers it.

Each play included an illegal kick. Treat the resulting loose ball as a fumble and see what you come up with.

“The most egregiously mis-worded rule in the Federation rule book 2-24-9” … I would say the same about 10-5-5d … The basic spot is the succeeding spot when the final result is a touchback. But that is a different story.

If every situation was covered by rule, no telling how large the Rule Book would be. Often times we as officials must apply several rules to arrive at the correct ruling / interpretation. 2-24-9 is one of those.

Because 2-24-9 states “When the ball is loose following an illegal kick, it is treated as a fumble”, some are trying to allow the Illegal Kick to change the status of the ball. Fortunately, we have rules in place that prohibit this from happening.

In the given play examples:

(1) K's punt is rolling at R's 5. R12, sensing that it will be downed by K, kicks the ball which rolls into his end zone. K10 jumps on the loose ball.

Ruling … Touchback – Why - Because 2-24-2 tells us “A kick ends when a player gains possession or when the ball becomes dead while not in player possession.” How many times do we say “a kick is a kick, is a kick …

(2) A's forward pass to A88 is low. B12 sticks his foot out and kicks the low pass. It lands on the ground where B5 recovers it.

Ruling … Incomplete Pass – Why – Because 2-31-4 tells us “A forward pass ends when it is caught, touches the ground or is out of bounds” and 2-31-6 tells us “A backward pass ends when it is caught or recovered or is out of bounds.

Perhaps 2-24-9 would be better suited if it stated that an illegal kick does not change the status of the ball.

Bob M ... I did not mean to "walk on your previous post." You got it in while I was typing. - ump33

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by ump33

...Perhaps 2-24-9 would be better suited if it stated that an illegal kick does not change the status of the ball.

REPLY: That's precisely what I proposed to the Rules Committee, but they didn't accept it.