NFHS - R1 signals for fair catch . Scrimmage kick is very high and K1 does a good job getting down the field to cover. R does not make a clean catch and is immediately hit by K1. The ball is recovered by K2. It can't be a fumble because it was not possesed by R1. It's hard to say R1 muffed it because the contact by K1 was immediate. I read (6-5-6). Can K1 cause the muff? Does K need to allow R any amount of time to gain possession?

Kick catching interference - if he's signalled for a fair catch, is in the process of making the catch and K1 hits him, it's KCI.

I agree, if it is that fast it is KCI...

That's what I thought. What if the ball had bounced off the shoulder pad into the air. Would K1 be able to hit R1? Does the fair catch signal protect the R from being hit until the ball is dead?

No . Just until the kick is over

### an unsuccessful attempt to secure possession of a ball is a muff. In this play, that should be immaterial as the team-R receiver most certianly did not have an unimpeded oportunity to catch the ball and secondly, the receiver had signalled for a fair catch. He should not have been contacted at all.. This is KCI.

You ask if K can cause a muff? Sure, he could be distracting the receiver by standing too close, yelling at him or waving his hands in front of him. Again, remember the definition of a muff.. and unsuccessful attempt to secure possession.

You can't rule a fumble on a Fair Catch as the ball is dead as soon as it is caught. So there cannot be a fumble, but there can be a foul on K.

Quote:

...an unsuccessful attempt to secure possession of a ball is a muff. In this play, that should be immaterial as the team-R receiver most certianly did not have an unimpeded oportunity to catch the ball and secondly, the receiver had signalled for a fair catch. He should not have been contacted at all.. This is KCI. You ask if K can cause a muff? Sure, he could be distracting the receiver by standing too close, yelling at him or waving his hands in front of him. Again, remember the definition of a muff.. and unsuccessful attempt to secure possession. ...Kick catching interference - if he's signalled for a fair catch, is in the process of making the catch and K1 hits him, it's KCI...

Sorry guys, but I disagree with your blanket statements on this. What if the K player comes from the side of R before the contact? Did he obstruct R's path to the ball or touch R? No. Also, once R bobbles or muffs, he CAN be contacted by K provided he is attempting to secure possession. If R doesn't catch it clean then K can attempt to secure possession whether the ball hits the ground or not. Casebook play 6.5.2 Situation A (b) describes this exact play.

Good call.

That case play isn't anywhere like this one. That case book play the ball is muffed up into the air.. This play talks about a catch/BANG play. That is KCI.

A player homing in from the side might be guilty of KCI and might not be.
Again, this play post has the receiver making a FC signal and the receiver maybe bobbing the ball at most. K does not have a license to smack him at the point.

I'm really glad that the NCAA has changed their ruling on this for this season. That being if a fair catch signal is given and the ball is muffed INTO the air, the receiver must still have an opportunity to catch it. Team-A cannot prevent him from making that catch. Of course, some common sense prevails such as if that ball flys forward 10 yards, as no way could the receive get up there to catch it. But in general, he must be allowed to catch his muff.

Not the way I read it... R does not make a clean catch and is immediately hit by K1. The ball is recovered by K2.

Sounds like the same play to me- K gave him the opportunity to make the catch and he didn't catch it. Legal play.

To me, "does not make a clean catch" = bobble = muff into air.

However, if he bobbles then catches and then is hit by K, we have a foul- R has protection and the ball is dead when R makes the catch (secures possession).

let me clarify the "clean catch" The ball never went further that R's standing reach. In other words the ball was floating somewhere between the chest and wrists and he is hit. It just seemed to me that R should have received the 0.5 - 1.0 second to possess the ball.

### After you have read the clarification posted by "citfirst", do you still believe his play is not KCI?

Maybe some will not flag it, but I'll not let that go without a flag.

You can disagree if you like but you'd be wrong. :)

We arent' making blanket statements or saying "What if...?" We answering based on what was posted. And, as Tom stated, the case play is not the same as this one. c it first's 2nd post would be more in line with the case play that you cited.

Kick catching interference - if he's signalled for a fair catch, is in the process of making the catch and K1 hits him, it's KCI.

That's a blanket statement that's simply not true. The ball is muffed into the air by R- he's still in the process of making a catch but most certainly CAN be contacted by K.

Based on c it first's further description of the play it sounds like something you'd really have to see. If the ball just rolled forward in his arms I wouldn't allow the contact- if it popped in the air I would.

Would the foul really be "kick catching interference"?? Isn't K contacting R after the catch, thus the ball is dead?

Well, I guess I need to say it again. This isn't a blanket statement. It's a statement written to answer THIS PLAY, no other.

Quote:

Based on c it first's further description of the play it sounds like something you'd really have to see. If the ball just rolled forward in his arms I wouldn't allow the contact- if it popped in the air I would.

Well, once again, you'd be wrong. Please cite the rule that states, that R has to catch the ball cleanly in order to still have protection.

Quote:

Would the foul really be "kick catching interference"?? Isn't K contacting R after the catch, thus the ball is dead?

If he hasn't made the catch, how can the play be over? :rolleyes: