Fair Catch

[bossman72]

This is moreso what I was driving at - i know the rule (NCAA is similar) but I don't understand the logic behind it for this very specific case. The rules also appear to be in conflict - FC rules say R can't advance, but scrimmage kick rules say if they catch/recover behind the NZ, both teams can advance. Usually in situations like these, we see a 'if not in conflict with other rules' statement. I don't see anything that says FC rules trump scrimmage kick rule in this situation.

The point is, when B gives a FC signal, Team A relaxes.  They know they don't have to tackle anyone.  Letting B advance after a signal gives them an advantage.

Let's say the kicker pops the kick straight up and B signals for a FC and catches the ball 2 yards behind the NZ.  Team A is going to relax and not tackle him.  That's why the ball is dead.

NCAA actually changed this about 10 years ago.  FC signals behind the NZ were ignored.  Now the ball is dead no matter what.

[bama_stripes]

Oops! Didn’t see Bossman’s post on Pg. 2.

[Ralph Damren]

Per 6-5-5, once R signals for a fair catch they have given up to ability to return a kick. Bossman explained it well.

[sczeebra]

So, do all here agree that K cannot legally contact R behind the NZ after they signal for a fair catch?

[Ralph Damren]

So, do all here agree that K cannot legally contact R behind the NZ after they signal for a fair catch?

A fair catch BEHIND the LOS is invalid (2-9-4a). Only the receiver giving a valid fair catch signal is afforded protection (6-5-3). Sorta' like no DPI on contact with an eligible receiver behind LOS/

[sczeebra]

(2-9-4a) is only concerned with the how it's done not where. We shouldn't penalize for an invalid signal. Since he is afforded no protection I have always taught in class that the receiver signalling behind the NZ is in effect just waving his arm.

[dch]

we were taught he was just waving Hello to his mom in the stands.