Hans..a HERO...or a zero...YOU MAKE THE CALL...

[Ralph Damren]

Hans, an exchange student from Sweden, is a soccer star. Hans wants to date the prom queen. Hans is told the prom queen loves football. In the game with their archrival , Hans' team trails by 2 with 0:02 to go. His team has the ball at B's 5 and Hans is sent in to try a 23 yard field goal....

(1) Hans' kick is blocked by big ole' Bubba;
(2) the blocked kick is still airborne when Hans' soccer instincts return;
(3) Hans boots the loose ball thru the uprights;
(4) (5-man crew)

Slo-Joe, the ref, begins to ponder….

[/YOU MAKE THE CALL....

  b]

[ncwingman]

I was wondering if this would show up since it didn't seem to get traction in the other thread where I left that as an exercise for the reader...

Foul for illegal kicking would be enforced from the spot of the foul, replay the down and K gets (probably) an untimed down -- I doubt that took less than 2 seconds, but maybe the home team clock operator was a little slow on the trigger finger...

If B declines the penalty, the field goal is good.

Rule 8-4-1 -- A field goal is scored as follows: [...]
b) The kicked ball shall not touch any player of K beyond the expanded neutral zone or the ground before passing through the uprights

While the kicked ball did strike a player of K after the kick (or rather a player of K struck the ball), it was behind the neutral zone and thus not disqualifying for the score.

[AlUpstateNY]

I was wondering if this would show up since it didn't seem to get traction in the other thread where I left that as an exercise for the reader...

Foul for illegal kicking would be enforced from the spot of the foul, replay the down and K gets (probably) an untimed down -- I doubt that took less than 2 seconds, but maybe the home team clock operator was a little slow on the trigger finger...

If B declines the penalty, the field goal is good.

One (of many) really good reasons "Timers" should be provided, as members of the Game Officiating Crew, by the assigning organization.

[Ralph Damren]

Great job, ncwingman, as I figured that this would be a tough one! The status of an illegal kick becomes what the ball was before the IK (2-24-10). That was a legal place kick, which was not grounded and could score a FG (8-4-1b). Tack-on could not be applied, as K would be next to put the ball in play via a kickoff following a field goal. Assuming time expired during the play  would get an untimed down from B's 23 if IK occurred at B's 13.

HAPPY ENDING: Hans booms a 40 yarder thru the pipes, the prom queen is the first to greet him and promises to return to Sweden with Hans over the Holidays to meet his family.

SAD ENDING: While Slo-JOE,the ref - is thinking this one thru, ICE arrives and discovers Hans has an expired student visa.  His team doesn't have another kicker, and as a hail-mary falls incomplete the prom queen begins to look at the cute players on the opponents.

NOT ALL FOOTBALL STORIES HAVE HAPPY ENDINGS...

[Logical]

I'm more impressed with Hans' illegal kick than with his 40Y FG. Nevertheless, it should not score in American Football. Therefore, as unlikely as this scenario may be, in practicality, it should be a TB.
So I recommend the following rule change(s):

6-2-1
K may punt, drop kick or place kick from in or behind the neutral zone before team possession has changed. It is not necessary to be in a scrimmage kick formation to execute a legal scrimmage kick. K may not punt, drop kick or place kick from beyond the neutral zone. An illegal kick shall not score regardless of preceding status. R may not punt, drop kick or place kick.
<update and add to Table 6-4>

9-7-1
No player shall intentionally kick the ball other than as a free or scrimmage kick. An illegal kick shall not score regardless of preceding status.

[Kalle]

I'm more impressed with Hans' illegal kick than with his 40Y FG. Nevertheless, it should not score in American Football. Therefore, as unlikely as this scenario may be, in practicality, it should be a TB.
So I recommend the following rule change(s):

I know NFHS really dislikes copying NCAA rule language, but why not just change the current language a bit to: "The kicked ball shall not touch any player of K or the ground before passing through the uprights"?

[Logical]

My concern with that is I believe a low legal attempt that accidentally deflects off of a K player in/behind the NZ (blockers) should not disqualify score (plus, quite difficult to determine if that touch was by K or R).
My issue is with an illegal kick scoring.

[ncwingman]

The issue with "not touching K" globally is the low kick that caroms off the linemen and through the uprights -- now you have to determine if it hit a K player or an R player (what if it hits the R player *then* a K player?). Under the current rule, any touching of a low kick in or behind the neutral zone is ignored.

I'd be more supportive of a rule that an illegal kick cannot score, but then you need to unwind the definition of "illegal kick". The status of the ball cannot be "illegal kick" since illegally kicking doesn't change the status of the ball, so at what point does an illegal kick stop being an illegal kick? In most cases, an illegal kick isn't a kick at all... we'd be piling on a lot of language to unwind a situation that will probably never happen.

Honestly, I think it's more likely to see your Exchange Student Rugby Player drop kick the ball after a busted play, which could be perfectly legal -- if K picks the ball up after the block and then drop kicks it through the uprights.

[CalhounLJ]

I vote for the “no touching by K anywhere” option. I can’t remember ever having a situation where a kick was touched and we didn’t know who it touched. Plus the fact that K shouldn’t be allowed to touch the kick at all. If he can’t get out of the way it doesn’t need to score. Plus, any kick that touches K has a horrible chance of scoring any way.

Makes more sense to me than trying to reinvent the illegal kicking definition.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[ncwingman]

Ultimately, I think this comes down to being a solution in search of a problem.

K would have to double kick the ball *in the air, in or behind the neutral zone* and score for this to become an issue. I've got a much better chance of seeing a couple fair catch kicks on the day I win the lottery.

In the process, we'd make a low kick that doinks off a lineman's helmet not be able to score -- that's not gaining an advantage, and nobody is trying to do that on purpose.

My #1 vote would be to leave it be. There's no problem to solve.

If you insist, then maybe change 8-4-1b to "The kicked ball shall not a) touch any player of K beyond the expanded neutral zone, b) be intentionally touched by K in or behind the expanded neutral zone, or c) touch the ground before passing through the goal"

But don't do that. It's not needed.

[dammitbobby]

Except for still being airborne when kicked, this is pretty close: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gegqfNRwXX8

Here's another fun one:  Big Ole' Bubba catches the blocked punt and then runs it in for 2 points.  https://youtu.be/dTuYSLY_RWw

[Ump33]

Except for still being airborne when kicked, this is pretty close: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gegqfNRwXX8

Here's another fun one:  Big Ole' Bubba catches the blocked punt and then runs it in for 2 points.  https://youtu.be/dTuYSLY_RWw

Many years ago, there was a play like your second example of a PAT that was blocked.  K recovered behind the LOS and ran it in for a two point try.  If I'm not mistaken it was a high school playoff game and the final score was 8-7.  The team with 8 advanced to the next round, the team with 6 went home and the crew was suspended for the following year.

[Ralph Damren]

Rule changes sometimes have unintended results. In 2014 we tweaked the IK rule because of a play that occurred in the Midwest. An airborne forward pass was kicked out of the air by a soccer player turned D-back. Once it hit the ground the officials signaled incomplete and  B for IK. The ball should have remained in play back then as the rule treated an IK then as a fumble.

We felt the officials wrongly did the right thing and tweaked the rule to oblige. As a result, the potential for a IK > FG. Note that it is still a foul, but K would have the ability to repay the down in lieu of R getting the ball after the touchback and tack-on at R's 30.

[CalhounLJ]

I’ve never been accused of wrongly doing the right thing.
Good stuff


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk