Illegal Block question

[Zap]

4/10 @ A-40. Team A punts the ball and B8 signals for a fair catch at the B-20. The ball goes over B8's head and bounces at the B-10. B8 does not want A to get the ball so he blocks a team A player at the B-10. The ball then hits a team B player at the B-3 and rolls into the EZ where A44 jumps on the ball.

[MAFBRef]

B doesn't end up with the ball.  No PSK.  Enforce from previous spot.  Team A 1 & 10 at 50 yard line.

[dammitbobby]

6-3-13: ARTICLE 13. Penalties for all fouls by the kicking team other than kickcatch interference (Rule 6-4) during a scrimmage kick play (except field-goal attempts) in which the ball crosses the neutral zone may be enforced either at the previous spot with the down repeated (Exception: Penalty option is a safety for fouls in Team A’s end zone.) or at the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B, at the option of Team B. (A.R. 6-3-13-I-III)

Agreed, enforce from previous spot.

[Zap]

Ummmm…. Team B fouled.

[dammitbobby]

doh!  You are correct.  Give me a min to find the correct reference. 

I swear 90% of the things I post here are wrong are from poor reading comprehension/rushing

[dammitbobby]

Illegal Block or Contact
ARTICLE 4. A player of Team B who has made a valid or invalid signal for a fair catch and does not touch the ball shall not block or foul an opponent during that down (A.R. 6-5-4-I and II). PENALTY—Free kick: Receiving team’s ball 15 yards from the spot of the foul [S40]. Scrimmage kick: 15 yards, postscrimmage kick enforcement [S40].

so, as I understand it, if not in the EZ, this would be PSK, because: 1) foul by receiving team, 2)during a kick that crossed neutral zone, 3)K would not be next to put ball in play. 

Since it is in the EZ, since B touched it, it is a live ball, recovered by A in their end zone, they would decline the penalty, resulting in a TD.

*I did have this wrong as I neglected to account for B's touching, and modified to be correct.

[blindtxzebra]

 How about team A declines the penalty and accepts the result of the play. Touchdown Team A.

[Zap]

So that is where I am hung up at.... can they do that? Take the TD and the 15 years. The illegal block of a fair catch signaler is not listed as a PF.

[blindtxzebra]

So that is where I am hung up at.... can they do that? Take the TD and the 15 years. The illegal block of a fair catch signaler is not listed as a PF.

Any penalty may be declined. That’s the tricky part of this question. It cannot be carried over to the try, kickoff, or OT.

[Legacy Zebra]

Ok, lets add another twist to the play.

4/10 @ A-40. Team A punts the ball and B8 signals for a fair catch at the B-20. The ball goes over B8's head and bounces at the B-10. B8 does not want A to get the ball so he blocks a team A player at the B-10. The ball is in the air beyond the goal line when A44 bats the ball back into the field of play.The ball then hits a team B player at the B-3 and rolls into the EZ where A44 jumps on the ball.

[Zap]

Any penalty may be declined. That’s the tricky part of this question. It cannot be carried over to the try, kickoff, or OT.

This is where I think an AR or editorial change needs to come in to state this as a PF. Heck if participation without a helmet is a PF, how is this not?

[ElvisLives]

Ok, lets add another twist to the play.

4/10 @ A-40. Team A punts the ball and B8 signals for a fair catch at the B-20. The ball goes over B8's head and bounces at the B-10. B8 does not want A to get the ball so he blocks a team A player at the B-10. The ball is in the air beyond the goal line when A44 bats the ball back into the field of play.The ball then hits a team B player at the B-3 and rolls into the EZ where A44 jumps on the ball.

No score for A. If A were to decline the penalty for B's illegal block, B would invoke the Illegal Touching privilege, to get the ball at the B-20 (the artificial spot of illegal touching when A44 batted the in-flight ball beyond B's goal line). If A accepts the penalty, the score is canceled, but A retains possession of the ball, with the distance penalty taking the ball from the previous spot to the B-45, 1/10.

The ironic thing is that the penalty statement for this foul does not take into account the possibility of this foul occurring WITHOUT the possibility of PSK enforcement. But, enforcement logic tells that, if can't be enforced as PSK, then it must be enforced at the previous spot. This is not a personal foul, so it can not be carried over to the try.

[Snapper]

Ok, lets add another twist to the play.

4/10 @ A-40. Team A punts the ball and B8 signals for a fair catch at the B-20. The ball goes over B8's head and bounces at the B-10. B8 does not want A to get the ball so he blocks a team A player at the B-10. The ball is in the air beyond the goal line when A44 bats the ball back into the field of play.The ball then hits a team B player at the B-3 and rolls into the EZ where A44 jumps on the ball.

No score for A. If A were to decline the penalty for B's illegal block, B would invoke the Illegal Touching privilege, to get the ball at the B-20 (the artificial spot of illegal touching when A44 batted the in-flight ball beyond B's goal line). If A accepts the penalty, the score is canceled, but A retains possession of the ball, with the distance penalty taking the ball from the previous spot to the B-45, 1/10.

The ironic thing is that the penalty statement for this foul does not take into account the possibility of this foul occurring WITHOUT the possibility of PSK enforcement. But, enforcement logic tells that, if can't be enforced as PSK, then it must be enforced at the previous spot. This is not a personal foul, so it can not be carried over to the try.

I'm reading this play as "Forced Touching".  A44 bats the ball, it hits a team B player and rolls into the EZ.

B 1/10 B-5, Snap, 25

[Snapper]

This is where I think an AR or editorial change needs to come in to state this as a PF. Heck if participation without a helmet is a PF, how is this not?

I think the difference is that participation without a helmet is potentially dangerous, whereas this block is not necessarily so.  At least that's how I read the rulesmakers intent in separating this from PF's.

[ElvisLives]

I'm reading this play as "Forced Touching".  A44 bats the ball, it hits a team B player and rolls into the EZ.

B 1/10 B-5, Snap, 25

Yeah, that’s a good ruling if we read the statement strictly, and we certainly should.
If, instead, the touching was a muff of a recovery attempt, then A’s recovery in the end zone would be legal, and a TD, and then we get involved with the accepted penalty vs. illegal touching issue.

Really good point.