Onside kick rule question
 

Team A attempts an onside kick. The ball bounces off the ground, high in the air. Team B player, 8 yards downfield, camps under the ball to catch it. Before he can catch it, Team A player blocks him. The ball hits the ground and bounces beyond the 10-yard limit where it is recovered by Team A. I say no foul because once the ball hits the ground (right off the tee), no fair catch or opportunity to catch is involved. Free ball.

What rule set are you looking for answers for? Cause under NCAA rules, a ball that is driven directly into the ground in a effort to get that big bounce (like you see in most onside kicks) is treated as though it's been kicked directly in the air...and all subsequent rules as such are in effect (KCI).

Is NCAA the only ruleset among NFHS, NCAA and NFL to view it that way? Because that doesn't make much sense to me.

Thanks, wasn't aware of the bounce rule. Does receiver need space to make a catch like a punt or can he be blocked? (NCAA)

NFHS: K may not touch a free kick in flight unless blocked into the kick, even if no receiver is in position to catch the kick (KCI). Once the ball has touched the ground and gone 10 yards, K may recover it.

Team A cannot block in free blocking zone unless B initiates it. (NFHS)

You mean the neutral zone.

Player safety...the NCAA powers that be are basically saying there is no appreciable difference between the ball being kicked directly in the air, and a ball that driven in the ground and takes that (high) initial bounce.

KCI rules are in place...meaning if a player is in place to make a catch, he can not be interfered with.

NCAA (2014)
Rule 6 Section 4 Opportunity To Catch a Kick

Interference With Opportunity

ARTICLE 1. a. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V, VI and IX).

b. It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul.(A.R.6-4-1-X-XIII)

c. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground (Exception: Free kick, par. f below), when any player of Team B muffs or touches a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team B muffs or touches a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Exception: Rule 6-5-1-b) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV).

f. During a free kick a player of the receiving team in position to receive the ball has the same kick-catch and fair-catch protection whether the ball is kicked directly off the tee or is immediately driven to the ground, strikes the ground once and goes into the air in the manner of the ball kicked directly off the tee.

Under the NFHS code, the governing rules are "Catch" (NF: 2-4) and "Recovery" (NF: 2-36) which apply to kicks.

The practice of immediately driving the ball into the ground (hopefully) creating the "big bounce" over the receiving team's front line, is designed to eliminate many of the benefits afforded to "catching" the kick.

The practice can cause confusion with deep officials, who may not see the initial contact with the ground, underscoring the importance of ASSIGNING the responsibility of OBSERVING the path of the ball to one of the "Up" (depending on configuration) officials, who may have the necessity of communicating with "deep" officials regarding flags thrown, that may need to be reconsidered because of the immediate ball grounding.

This is another reason Rogers gave for treating the immediate high bouncer and an airborne kick the same. It's not always easy to tell the difference since it happens so quickly.

Which is EXACTLY whay it is important that a specific "Up" official should be DESIGNATED to observe EACH/EVERY kick.

When there may be confusion on the deeper end resulting in an inaccurate assessment, that "Up" official is responsible to add the proper information to the discussion and final assessment.

But even the experienced D1 "up" official can't always tell if the ball went straight up or straight into the ground. It happens so fast. This took away the need to worry about that.

The skill required to properly execute a free kick immediately into the ground, so that it subsequently bounces over the R restraining line players (which under NFHS Rules satisfies both requirements for making recovery and possession of the kick by either team legal), is a relatively NEW SKILL that is progressing and spreading, quickly.

To eliminate the confusion you seem concerned about, either of the "up" officials (usually the HL) is ASSIGNED the RESPONSIBILITY of DETERMINING whether EACH kick is first DRIVEN into the ground, or not and is subsequently shared with any "down field" officials who may have observed perceived violations, that would properly be DISCOUNTED due to the initial GROUNDING of the kick.

This Mechanics adjustment, thus far, seems to have effectively eliminated enforcement confusions in NFHS contests.

I guess this means you are smarter than Rogers Redding. His words not mine.

The UNNECESSARY and seemingly RANDOM bolding of words makes it rATHer diffiCULT To read your posts.

Yep.

There was a very good reason why this was changed.

One was to remove the need to determine if it was a straight kick or an immediate grounder. The other was the situation at the other end was equally as dangerous to the receiving team player trying to catch/recover it. It's very logical. We don't see that kind of kick often at the HS level, but the rule change would acceptable. No different than adding the illegal blocks by the kicking team, 5-yard restriction, or 4-on-a-side rule changes.

Interesting that the danger aspect is apparently considered tolerable in Canadian football, where the typical onside kickoff attempt is a rugby-style chip to the side, where on the receiving team's side of their restraining line both teams have equal rights to the ball even in the air, although the kicking team does have to play the ball rather than the opponent seeking to play it. (The receiving team players are allowed to block opponents rather than playing the ball.)

This is the land of hockey and lacrosse as national sports and where a moose is very likely to decapitate an unlucky driver. Not to mention the good chance of freezing to death.

I think they quantify their risk a little differently than we do. ;)

Not at all, Mr. Reddings words referenced, and were apprently intended for NCAA level rules, which generally apply to a higher skill set, presenting different challenges, than those experienced at the NFHS level.

Replacing random bolding with random commas doesn't really help.

Your point (as I tried to understand) was that a trained official should be able to easily distinguish a immediate kick into the air and an immediate kick into the ground. If the NCAA recognized with their higher trained officials it's not easy or discernible then how would our much larger population of high school officials (who have a much broader range of experience) be more qualified to do it?

Far be it from me to try and discern the NCAA's concerns about, "their higher trained officials", but even a struggling, not quite as effectively trained HS official, standing on K's free kick line, observing the ball as it's kicked (without sacrificing other pre-kick requirements) is capable to clearly see whether a ball is kicked directly into the ground, as opposed to up into the air.

If, and only if, a flag is thrown related to the catch downfield, and when the up official (usually the HL) has observed that the kick, did in fact, be driven into the ground initially, the up official can consult with the calling official, inform him of the kick's trajectory to assist in determining whether that has a bearing on his call.

If not, "no harm, no foul". It's not rocket science, and sometimes 4 or 5 man crew members simply have to multitask, despite their limited "range of experience" and "qualifications".

Apologies for confusing you, Mike. Actually the bolding of certain words is not "intended" to be random, rather to call attention to specifics related to the subject. Perhaps if you considered those highlighted words, as significantto the process discussed, comprehension of the intent would be clearer.

To be completely honest with you, since you decided to respond this way...

I very rarely get messages from people about other people's posts. Maybe 2 a week. I got 4 in an hour remarking on how annoying it was that you bolded 6 words out of 14, and/or how it was hard to read. So I addressed it.

I think the bigger issue is that four people took the time to bother you with a non-issue.