Benefitting from a foul

[SCHSref]

4th and 5 from the R 35.  K attempts a field goal. The holder muffs the snap and before the holder can regain possession of the ball, the kicker kicks the ball off the ground. The ball goes out of bounds at R's 20 yard line untouched by either team.
Ruling: K will be the next team to put the ball in play.

Seems like this is a case where this can happen.  I know that K can keep the ball in ALL situations.  K can also have a 1st down if R declines the penalty.  Even if they are backed up and re-kick, they still get a chance to replay the down

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, this would be a situation where you would lead the captain over near the coach and explain something like :

  "We've got an illegal kick on the play. In this situation, BY RULE, it is treated like a fumble. BY RULE, declining the penalty would give them a 1st down. Accepting the penalty will mark it off from the spot of the illegal kick. (Assuming it occurred @ R's 42) It will be their ball with 4th down and 32 at their 43. Make sense ??"

One grunt means it does ..two grunts means it doesn't ...

K doesn't really benefit other then being forced to probably punt as they are now way out of field goal range. I believe this may be one of the IK fouls in NCAA where LOD kicks in. Exceptions tend to complicate matters, I'm happy as is.

[sczeebra]

I understand K will be next to put the ball in play but by rule this is a false statement. It is difficult enough to rule correctly in a game especially when one receives false info prior to making a decision. It's even more difficult to answer a test question when the same information is false. In the case play here it stated that the kicker kicked a loose ball. This is false information maybe
K (1 thru 99) kicked the ball but not a kicker per rule 2-32-8. As always ladies and gents, Thank you.

[Rulesman]

Loss of down solves the problem, but that's too easy of a fix.

[ncwingman]

Loss of down solves the problem, but that's too easy of a fix.

Here's a philosophical argument for that change --

Currently, all fouls that carry loss of down are illegal handing, illegal passing (including intentional grounding) and illegal touching. All are fouls regarding the advancement of the ball. Illegal batting and kicking are larger yardage fouls (15 vs 5) but do not carry the LOD provision, but they are also fouls regarding illegal advancement of the ball. It would be consistent to include LOD for those fouls as well.

I'm not saying there aren't arguments against it, as you said, it's too simple.

[SCHSref]

I understand K will be next to put the ball in play but by rule this is a false statement. It is difficult enough to rule correctly in a game especially when one receives false info prior to making a decision. It's even more difficult to answer a test question when the same information is false. In the case play here it stated that the kicker kicked a loose ball. This is false information maybe
K (1 thru 99) kicked the ball but not a kicker per rule 2-32-8. As always ladies and gents, Thank you.

What is "false" information in the play?  I'm not following you.

Also, by definition, whomever kicks the ball is the kicker.

[prab]

What is "false" information in the play?  I'm not following you.

Also, by definition, whomever kicks the ball is the kicker.

By rule, the term "kicker" refers only to someone who legally kicks.  In the OP the person who kicked the ball illegally does not meet the rulebook definition of "kicker".

If you also work basketball, think of the term "intentional".  As in intentional foul.  The basketball rule book definition and Webster's definition bare little resemblance to one another.

[J12]

Should the offendED team be given more options on an illegal kick?  Perhaps instead of a 15 yard penalty, one option could be 5 yards and loss of down, or even spot of foul with loss of down.

[Rulesman]

Should the offendED team be given more options on an illegal kick?  Perhaps instead of a 15 yard penalty, one option could be 5 yards and loss of down, or even spot of foul with loss of down.

Like I said earlier, this is an easy fix however the football rules committee shies away from exceptions. I've never understood why, but that is the reality of it all.

[KWH]

...K doesn't really benefit...as they are now way out of field goal range...Exceptions tend to complicate matters, I'm happy as is.

+1

In this situation, (and there are many other examples),  the Referee must make the options clear to the offended team.
Only if the Referee allows the offended team to mistakenly decline the penalty, would it be possible for "Team A" to gain an advantage. 
A good Referee would NEVER allow "Team B" to decline in this situation.

Additionally,  by definition, there is no K or R on this play.  Only A and B.  (See 2-43-2 and 2-43-3)

[JCM75]

I would like to ask a question for clarity sake. In the scenario, wouldn't it be classified as illegal kickING and not an illegal kick? I know the penalty enforcement is the same but I wanted to know for my own sake. Let's change it up a bit. What if the illegally kicked ball crossed the goal line? What is the status of the ball? a kick? an unsuccessful scoring kick? a fumble? If I understand the rule correctly, an illegally kicked ball or illegal kick of the ball, maintains its original status of a kick? I hope this makes sense. Just throwing it out there. I look forward to the responses.

[ncwingman]

I would like to ask a question for clarity sake. In the scenario, wouldn't it be classified as illegal kickING and not an illegal kick? I know the penalty enforcement is the same but I wanted to know for my own sake. Let's change it up a bit. What if the illegally kicked ball crossed the goal line? What is the status of the ball? a kick? an unsuccessful scoring kick? a fumble? If I understand the rule correctly, an illegally kicked ball or illegal kick of the ball, maintains its original status of a kick? I hope this makes sense. Just throwing it out there. I look forward to the responses.

An illegal kick and the act of illegal kicking are one and the same. The ball was illegally kicked. The player committed a foul of illegal kicking.

An illegally kicked ball retains it's previous status... whatever that may be. In the original scenario, the muffed snap is a fumble. The loose ball illegally kicked is still a fumble.

If the ball crosses the goal line, then it's A's force putting it across the line -- NOT AS A KICK, but as a fumble -- and you'd have to see what happens after (who gains possession before the ball becomes dead). The ball is not immediately dead just for crossing the goal line.

[Ralph Damren]

There is a very good chance that one of the "pipe guys" will see the bouncing illegal kick/now a fumble as a lousy legal kick. There is a good chance that said pipe guy will tweet his tweeter once the ball reaches the end zone. The IK foul would supersede the IW. If the illegal kick/fumble rolled dead in B's end zone without a single tweet, for B to decline the penalty would award a touchdown to A (8-2-1c). As KWH sez : "Never let team B decline...."

[Ralph Damren]

The IK/IB rule is quite complex and I was there (at the game) to witness the cause of one such segment. I figured ,as we sit by awaiting for the season to start, you guys might enjoy it :

 SCENE : UMaine vs UNH @Orono, Maine ...Homecoming 1973

 SITUATION : field had turned into a mud bowl..0-0 late in 3rd period, when......
   
 (1) Maine sets up in field goal formation;
 (2) Holder flips ball slightly backwards as kicker approaches;
 (3) Kicker was star volleyball player in off-season  ;
 (4) Kicker bats backward pass toward UNH's end zone  ;
 (5) UNH thinks the bouncing ball is a lousy kick 
 (6) Officials have been told and know better  ;
 (7) Bubba ,Maine's TE, waddles over and picks up a then legal bat..NOT A LOUSY KICK on UNH's 5  ;
 (8) Bubba continues his waddle into UNH's end zone ;
 (9) ..5 man crew back then
 (10) NCAA modified the bat rule next session ;
 (11) NFHS followed suit in 1975 via 9-7-3  .

FINAL SCORE : MAINE 6   UNH 0

The frat houses were open.....
                The parties were long......
                 The beverages were cold.....

 
    /color]
 

[VALJ]

Was the USC on the UNH coach enforced on the succeeding kickoff back then? 

[GA Umpire]

Ralph,
Was the score 3-0 a typo?

Should the score be 6-0

[Ralph Damren]

Was the USC on the UNH coach enforced on the succeeding kickoff back then? 

As I recall, there were no flags as  quickly explained the legality. For the remainder of the season every time Maine lined up for FG the opponent would yell : "Watch out for the bat ". It was never ran again but they had in their playbook "fake bat-screen right". The holder would again pitch the ball up with the kicker faking to bat it. The holder would then rise , catch the ball and throw a screen pass.
          It never got used.....
            The 'homecoming bat" made it to the then version of NFL Today.....
              The NCAA quickly changed the rule....
                The coach, Jack Bicknell, went on to coach BC...

[J12]

The IK/IB rule is quite complex and I was there (at the game) to witness the cause of one such segment. I figured ,as we sit by awaiting for the season to start, you guys might enjoy it :

 SCENE : UMaine vs UNH @Orono, Maine ...Homecoming 1973

 SITUATION : field had turned into a mud bowl..0-0 late in 3rd period, when......
   
 (1) Maine sets up in field goal formation;
 (2) Holder flips ball slightly backwards as kicker approaches;
 (3) Kicker was star volleyball player in off-season  ;
 (4) Kicker bats backward pass toward UNH's end zone  ;
 (5) UNH thinks the bouncing ball is a lousy kick 
 (6) Officials have been told and know better  ;
 (7) Bubba ,Maine's TE, waddles over and picks up a then legal bat..NOT A LOUSY KICK on UNH's 5  ;
 (8) Bubba continues his waddle into UNH's end zone ;
 (9) ..5 man crew back then
 (10) NCAA modified the bat rule next session ;
 (11) NFHS followed suit in 1975 via 9-7-3  .

FINAL SCORE : MAINE 6   UNH 0

The frat houses were open.....
                The parties were long......
                 The beverages were cold.....

 
    /color]
 

I'm pretty sure they showed this play on the NFL preview shows the next day, because I remember seeing something like this and my dad (who was a coach) explaining to me how it was legal.

[Ralph Damren]

Ralph,
Was the score 3-0 a typo?

Should the score be 6-0

Good catch, GA, I had partaken of some of that "cold beverage" at halftime and the scoreboard may have appeared blurry  crazy!

[Ralph Damren]

I'm pretty sure they showed this play on the NFL preview shows the next day, because I remember seeing something like this and my dad (who was a coach) explaining to me how it was legal.

I hope your dad had time to use it, as it became illegal very quickly  .

PS : As I recall, our kicker was a better volleyball player as he shanked the PAT !