KCI

[refjeff]

R1 is settled under the punt waiting to catch it.  At full speed K2 crosses his face just before the ball arrives.  R1 does not move except to take his eyes off the ball, which hits him in the chest and ricochets 5 yards back toward the LOS where three players jump on it.

The rule book requires an unobstructed "path to the ball."  The case book calls for an "unobstructed opportunity to catch the ball."  Path and opportunity are not the same thing.  According to Merriam-Webster any hindrance can be an obstruction, but neither of the Merriam brothers nor Noah Webster ever officiated a football game. So their opinion might not count for anything.  (I may be wrong about that.  Mr. Damren may have worked a game with Noah back in the day.)

I think a distraction can be KCI. Am I inventing an interpretation that does not exist?  Eventually I will ask the powers that be in my state.  Until then, what do you think?

[AlUpstateNY]

R1 is settled under the punt waiting to catch it.  At full speed K2 crosses his face just before the ball arrives.  R1 does not move except to take his eyes off the ball, which hits him in the chest and ricochets 5 yards back toward the LOS where three players jump on it.

The rule book requires an unobstructed "path to the ball."  The case book calls for an "unobstructed opportunity to catch the ball."  Path and opportunity are not the same thing.  According to Merriam-Webster any hindrance can be an obstruction, but neither of the Merriam brothers nor Noah Webster ever officiated a football game. So their opinion might not count for anything.  (I may be wrong about that.  Mr. Damren may have worked a game with Noah back in the day.)

I think a distraction can be KCI. Am I inventing an interpretation that does not exist?  Eventually I will ask the powers that be in my state.  Until then, what do you think?

Perhaps simply continuing to rely on the observation and judgment of the covering game official, as applies to THAT SPECIFIC situation whether the "opportunity to catch the ball" was indeed  "obstructed".

[CalhounLJ]

R1 is settled under the punt waiting to catch it.  At full speed K2 crosses his face just before the ball arrives.  R1 does not move except to take his eyes off the ball, which hits him in the chest and ricochets 5 yards back toward the LOS where three players jump on it.

The rule book requires an unobstructed "path to the ball."  The case book calls for an "unobstructed opportunity to catch the ball."  Path and opportunity are not the same thing.  According to Merriam-Webster any hindrance can be an obstruction, but neither of the Merriam brothers nor Noah Webster ever officiated a football game. So their opinion might not count for anything.  (I may be wrong about that.  Mr. Damren may have worked a game with Noah back in the day.)

I think a distraction can be KCI. Am I inventing an interpretation that does not exist?  Eventually I will ask the powers that be in my state.  Until then, what do you think?

I think it’s a stretch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[ilyazhito]

Distraction could be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. If a player started barking to distract an opponent from catching the ball, that would qualify as unsportsmanlike conduct, because it is an "excessive act that focuses attention upon himself", or it could fall under the unfair acts category as "hindering play by an unfair act that has no specific rule coverage".

[refjeff]

Perhaps simply continuing to rely on the observation and judgment of the covering game official, as applies to THAT SPECIFIC situation whether the "opportunity to catch the ball" was indeed  "obstructed".

  I don't think so.  Either it is or it is not. 

[refjeff]

I think it’s a stretch.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

OK, thanks.

[refjeff]

Distraction could be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. If a player started barking to distract an opponent from catching the ball, that would qualify as unsportsmanlike conduct, because it is an "excessive act that focuses attention upon himself", or it could fall under the unfair acts category as "hindering play by an unfair act that has no specific rule coverage".

  I am trying to avoid going into the weeds looking for something that isn't there.  If it isn't KCI I'm not going to call it something else.

[HLinNC]

"Crosses his face" is a coaching term.  If K just cut in front of him, I know of no ruling that states K has to vacate the entire area around R.  That is why I would want to know the distance involved.

You say the ball hits him in the chest.  That's plenty of opportunity to catch the ball. 

[refjeff]

"Crosses his face" is a coaching term.  If K just cut in front of him, I know of no ruling that states K has to vacate the entire area around R.  That is why I would want to know the distance involved.

You say the ball hits him in the chest.  That's plenty of opportunity to catch the ball.

All good points, but the case book doesn't say "plenty" of opportunity.  It says "unobstructed" opportunity.

[CalhounLJ]

Distraction could be considered unsportsmanlike conduct. If a player started barking to distract an opponent from catching the ball, that would qualify as unsportsmanlike conduct, because it is an "excessive act that focuses attention upon himself", or it could fall under the unfair acts category as "hindering play by an unfair act that has no specific rule coverage".

This too is a stretch. I don’t think yelling something like “boo” or “look out” at a receiver warrants a flag for UNS or KCI. I also don’t think it would be an excessive act to draw attention to himself either.  As for the “act that has no specific rules coverage,” what’s not specifically prohibited by the rules is generally allowed, so I would be slow to try to put that square peg into a round hole.

Of course, if he was yelling stuff about the opponents mom, or cussing him, etc., that would be different. Still not KCI, but surely UNS.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[HLinNC]

Since you used the term crossed his face, I assume he moved in front of and beyond him.  How does he obstruct R's path to the ball?

The rule says shall not obstruct, not shall not distract.

[refjeff]

Since you used the term crossed his face, I assume he moved in front of and beyond him.  How does he obstruct R's path to the ball?

The rule says shall not obstruct, not shall not distract.

The rule book does not define obstruction.  The dictionary says a distraction is one of many types of obstruction.

[AlUpstateNY]

  I don't think so.  Either it is or it is not.

EXACTLY, and the violation is "obstructing", and who else is going to determine that other than the covering official, observing what actually happened ,on that unique & specific instant?  "One size NEVER fits all".

[Ralph Damren]

In 2017 we removed 'face-guarding' from PI calls, so I would be hesitant to flag this. If flagged as an USC, remember that this would carry succeeding spot enforcement, so if K had recovered the muffed kick they could keep the ball.

I never had a chance, Jeff, to meet Noah however I was a big fan of Alex Webster of the New York Football Giants before the Patriots were born. Noah's brother Dan came to Maine back in 1841 while Secretary of State under John Tyler. His job was to get Lord Astburn drunk and to sign the Webster-Ashburn Treaty, settling the Maine-Canadian border. John Tyler had 15 children . His grandson ,Harrison Tyler, is still alive  .  Tyler took over the country's rains after Tippycanoe Harrison tipped over after being pres for only a month. Some wonder if Tyler's grandkid was named after gramp's predecessor .I don't.

Enough useless knowledge for one morn.

[Brian26]

I got one that happened in one of our games:

Onside kick attempt; K pooch kicks from hash to opposite side of the field front line R80 moves up to receive pooch kick at R49 but reacts to oncoming K59 running right him, R80 avoids contact from K59 at exact moment the balls hits the ground and K recovers at R49. No contact was made because R80 moved out the way at last second, would you have KCI?

[AlUpstateNY]

I got one that happened in one of our games:

Onside kick attempt; K pooch kicks from hash to opposite side of the field front line R80 moves up to receive pooch kick at R49 but reacts to oncoming K59 running right him, R80 avoids contact from K59 at exact moment the balls hits the ground and K recovers at R49. No contact was made because R80 moved out the way at last second, would you have KCI?

Did YOU judge K59's action to be OBSTRUCTING R's ability to field the kick?  If so, Yes.

[Brian26]

Did YOU judge K59's action to be OBSTRUCTING R's ability to field the kick?  If so, Yes.

It was video clip sent to us by the coach for review. My opinion was R80 moved to avoid the contact but several other white hats said he didn't need to and should have stood his ground in order to get KCI call.

[NVFOA_Ump]

It was video clip sent to us by the coach for review. My opinion was R80 moved to avoid the contact but several other white hats said he didn't need to and should have stood his ground in order to get KCI call.

We've always been instructed that to call KCI on a play similar to this we need at least some minimal contact. 

[AlUpstateNY]

It was video clip sent to us by the coach for review. My opinion was R80 moved to avoid the contact but several other white hats said he didn't need to and should have stood his ground in order to get KCI call.

"Opinions are like "anal orifices", everyone has one and each is a little bit different than everyone else's."  Video can often be helpful, as it MAY provide additional detail, but NOT ALWAYS (better than direct observation from appropriate ground level positioning). Sometimes one has to endure a consequence to earn a specific reward.

[ilyazhito]

KCI does not require contact, unlike DPI. If the K player is hit in the back with the ball, or he is in the way of a receiver attempting to catch the ball, both of those acts are KCI.

[AlUpstateNY]

KCI does not require contact, unlike DPI. If the K player is hit in the back with the ball, or he is in the way of a receiver attempting to catch the ball, both of those acts are KCI.

Correct, but the question doesn't suggest either was the case.  The determining judgment would be that of the covering official, based on what was observed and whether it amounted to an OBSTRUCTION.

[refjeff]

We've always been instructed that to call KCI on a play similar to this we need at least some minimal contact.

Case Book6.5.6 Situation D.  Contact is not required.