Ill-legal block?
 

Two simple questions ( are they really ever simple) (Federation rules)

Eligible Receiver runs 15 yards down field, hitting defender knocking defender to ground, cuts and runs down field as ball is thrown --- legal contact or not?

or does ART. 10 apply . . . It is forward-pass interference if:
a. ANY PLAYER (my emphasis) of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponent's opportunity TO "MOVE FORWARD" (implied or), catch or bat the pass.

Second situation:
K kicks the ball during opening kickoff, ball goes 40 yards. two K players make contact with return team BEFORE ball is touched? Illegal block?

1) OPI- A's restriction begins at the snap.

2) Legal- ball has traveled 10 yards- see 9.3.8 B

I agree the ball is legal, but the question is since K made contact with R before the ball is touched (either in the air or bouncing on the ground) under federation rules can K "bowl over" R before the ball is touched?

Read the case play.

And bowling over is not part of your original post.

My apology
 

My posting's here are not intended to spark argument simply to gain input... in my original post I did not ask if it was a legal kick either. The core of the question is (since it is a legal kick) would contact with R be legal prior to touching the ball. I thought contact with R before touching was a foul? As well as "bowling over" or are they separate fouls?

Why would you think that?

Because
 

The question to me was "why did I think that.."

because I was confused. ART. 8 . . . No member of the kicking team shall initiate contact to (block) an opponent on a free kick until:

a. The legal kick has traveled 10 yards;

b. The kicking team is eligible to recover a free-kicked ball; or

c. The receiving team initiates a block within the neutral zone.

IS A "anded with (B or C) which would then mean that

1. A must be true AND either B or C must be true,

In the question A is true b or c not necessarily true.

Hence the question.

A or B or C

HLinNC didn't address the legality of the kick. He said "Legal" then a dash, then "ball has traveled 10 yards," meaning once the ball travels beyond the receiving line, K can contact R.

Once any of the 3 conditions in 9-3-8 are met, K can contact R. Think about it. Do you really think that on a kick to R's 1 yard line, no one is making contact until the returner touches the ball.

KCI potential?

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

(a) Illegal contact by Team A. 10 yards, repeat the down.

(b) Illegal interference if blocked player has a chance to possess the kick. 1D/10 for B at spot of foul.

"Toward", not "forward".

When there's a list separated by commas and then a conjunction before the last item, whichever conjunction it is (and or or) is distributed over the list.

Yes, if an R player is in position to catch the kick. But that wasn't specified in the OP.

Before we go trapsing down the rabbit hole let's go back to the OP.

Juxone asked:
I looked up the rule and the case play and gave him the cite. If I came off brusque, it wasn't my intention. He asked a question, I gave him the reference to look up and come to his conclusion. I saw no need to elaborate

This particular play, no "bowling overs" , no other added dimensions from the original posed scenario; this is a typical, everyday ordinary kickoff. K can engage R blockers as the ball has traveled the necessary 10 yards, probably through the air as usual. Have you seen or ever flagged K yet for this? No and I hope not.

Now as to "bowling over". If R and K are engaging to block, R certainly should be expecting to block oncoming K players. Unless some hit by K was unnecessarily rough, why in the world should we think this is some added issue to consider?

As to KCI- 6-ART. 6 . . . While any free kick is in flight in or beyond the neutral zone to the receiver's goal line or any scrimmage kick is in flight beyond the neutral zone to the receiver's goal line, K shall not:

a. Touch the ball or R, unless blocked into the ball or R, or to ward off a blocker; or

Yes. If you make the play something it was not, then yes. But feel free to make the play something it was not... OP did. :)