Author Topic: Illegal Kicking in the End Zone (Read 4048 times)

NVFOA_Ump · « **on:** July 20, 2019, 07:29:15 PM »

Had this play in a men's league game today:

4th and 18 for Team A at their own 11 yard line. Team A is in punt formation and the snap is a loose ball roller that the kicker kicks as it is rolling along the ground in the EZ and the ball goes out of the back of the EZ. What are the possible results of this play including any penalty enforcements in both NCAA and NFHS rules?

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #1 on:** July 20, 2019, 08:04:48 PM »

Result of play is safety. If by chance B decides to accept the penalty, basic spot is previous spot, foul is behind basic spot so we enforce a ten yard penalty from spot of foul replay the down.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Derek Teigen · « **Reply #2 on:** July 20, 2019, 08:21:57 PM »

that's good stuff. I guess NVFOA determined that it was kicked on purpose? Just to clarify because I can see a kicker chasing down the ball that sailed over his head and in reaching down to pick up it accidentally kick it. Was it obvious that the intent to kick the ball out of the back end of their own end zone was purposeful?

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #3 on:** July 20, 2019, 08:32:33 PM »

I read it as intentional. If not, take away the penalty and the result of the play is still a safety.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

prab · « **Reply #4 on:** July 20, 2019, 10:03:54 PM »

By NFHS definition, the word "kick" (legal or illegal) means intentional contact. If you want to argue that someone's foot unintentionally contacted the ball then you have to use some terminology that does not include the word "kick".

The NFHS definition of "kick" may not be the same as Webster's definition.

bama_stripes · « **Reply #5 on:** July 21, 2019, 07:26:08 AM »

The topic heading says “Illegal Kicking”, which is an intentional act. Otherwise you’d have a muff. Calhoun’s answer gives the correct options for FED.

NVFOA_Ump · « **Reply #6 on:** July 21, 2019, 08:40:41 AM »

So in the play I neglected to note that the illegal kick occurred in the EZ (edited original post). So given that the enforcement spot would be in the EZ so that would also result in a safety based on enforcement at the spot of the foul?

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #7 on:** July 21, 2019, 08:54:24 AM »

Yes. Safety either way. R has no options.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Derek Teigen · « **Reply #8 on:** July 21, 2019, 01:04:16 PM »

To PRAB and BAMA STRIPES...ok got it. the verbage that NVFOA used was enough to determine it was kicked on purpose...otherwise he would use 'muff'. But either way as CALHOUN reports the result is a safety and now I am sitting here thinking why the penalty is the same for both acts (intentional and not intentional). I'm thinking that the illegal kick should carry a higher penalty like a 10 yard enforcement from their free kick line of the 20 back to the 10.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #9 on:** July 21, 2019, 01:24:40 PM »

Accidentally or unintentionally coming into contact with the ball either by hand or foot is never a foul. For example, if in the first example K accidentally kicked the ball, that’s Not a foul it’s a muff. A muff can impart new force on a grounded loose ball, and so if the official determined that to be the case, the result of the play is a safety. But, even if the muff didn’t impart new force, the initial force that put the ball in the end zone was the snap. when it became dead back there the result of the play was a safety. So the result is a safety, not because k fouled back there.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #10 on:** July 21, 2019, 01:27:58 PM »

Quote from: Derek Teigen on July 21, 2019, 01:04:16 PM

To PRAB and BAMA STRIPES...ok got it. the verbage that NVFOA used was enough to determine it was kicked on purpose...otherwise he would use 'muff'. But either way as CALHOUN reports the result is a safety and now I am sitting here thinking why the penalty is the same for both acts (intentional and not intentional). I'm thinking that the illegal kick should carry a higher penalty like a 10 yard enforcement from their free kick line of the 20 back to the 10.

We’ve had that discussion on this board. I think the consensus was tha in cases like this the penalty is the safety. There is no yardage to be marked off. If we gave a safety AND a yardage penalty, that would be a double-whammy.
Good catch. It’s almost as if you remember that discussion.

Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Derek Teigen · « **Reply #11 on:** July 21, 2019, 01:58:11 PM »

well. in both cases the 'force' results in a safety...but one force is intentional and the other is not. That's why I was wondering about it. I would think the intentional kick would carry a bit higher of a penalty....at least a 'tack on foul' (I think that is the correct verbage?)....tack on the 10 yard penalty for the illegal kick at the succeeding spot.

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #12 on:** July 21, 2019, 02:21:44 PM »

Quote from: Derek Teigen on July 21, 2019, 01:58:11 PM

well. in both cases the 'force' results in a safety...but one force is intentional and the other is not. That's why I was wondering about it. I would think the intentional kick would carry a bit higher of a penalty....at least a 'tack on foul' (I think that is the correct verbage?)....tack on the 10 yard penalty for the illegal kick at the succeeding spot.

Gotcha. Remember force doesn't have to be intentional. Force is simply imparting new direction. The "tack on foul" rule for fouls by K during a kick (10-4-2 exception) doesn't apply here because it's not a kicking down. True, K was in kick formation and probably would have kicked it, but they didn't. None of the scoring play enforcements apply either. WAIT A MINUTE, I GOT MY CASEPLAYS MIXED UP!
Disregard everything I posted after "none of the scoring play enforcements apply either." That's a true statement, but not for the reasons I just posted. I was thinking of another situation when I posted that. The scoring play enforcements do not apply because there was no touchdown, field goal, or try scored on this play. The tack-on doesn't apply to a safety.

Derek Teigen · « **Reply #13 on:** July 21, 2019, 02:36:49 PM »

ok...got it. thank you!

bama_stripes · « **Reply #14 on:** July 22, 2019, 06:42:01 AM »

Quote from: Derek Teigen on July 21, 2019, 01:58:11 PM

well. in both cases the 'force' results in a safety...but one force is intentional and the other is not. That's why I was wondering about it. I would think the intentional kick would carry a bit higher of a penalty....at least a 'tack on foul' (I think that is the correct verbage?)....tack on the 10 yard penalty for the illegal kick at the succeeding spot.

By intentionally kicking the ball out of the EZ, K has given up a chance to recover and advance the ball, has given R two points, and must give R possession via a free kick from the K20.

How much more do you want to penalize them for one foul?

Derek Teigen · « **Reply #15 on:** July 22, 2019, 11:15:08 AM »

more yardage? I'm seeing that both intentional (illegal kick) and (muff) carry the same exact penalty. Just thinking the illegal kick should be more costly.

Kalle · « **Reply #16 on:** July 22, 2019, 11:21:09 AM »

Quote from: Derek Teigen on July 22, 2019, 11:15:08 AM

more yardage? I'm seeing that both intentional (illegal kick) and (muff) carry the same exact penalty. Just thinking the illegal kick should be more costly.

I think the logic is: team A could just as well down the ball as to kick it out of bounds, so they don't gain any advantage. If they kick it but it stays inbounds and is then returned into the field of play (advantage resulting from the foul), the foul will still result in a safety.

Derek Teigen · « **Reply #17 on:** July 22, 2019, 12:22:14 PM »

Hi Kalle. ok, I understand the advantage gained or not gained point of view for sure, except in the case where maybe R is going to imminently dive on the ball and K just kicks it out to avoid the touchdown by R. I know I'm spending way too much on 1 in a thousand type of play here and I'll try to focus more on what I will see week by week. But its an interesting situation but this is what I have taken away from it so far:

1) ANY illegal kick or batting of the ball "IN" the END ZONE results in a safety, wherever the ball ends up..... BUT if the ball is illegally kicked or batted back into the field of play then R has the ability to decline the safety option and take possession of the ball from where the ball ended up becoming dead (if coach deems more advantageous to the team).

2) ANY illegal kick or batting of the ball 'INTO' and 'THROUGH' the END ZONE also results in an automatic safety. However R could decline the penalty and have the 10 yard penalty enforced from the spot of the foul or 1/2 the distance if inside the 20 yard line'... and the kick would be retried.

Why would they ever do this? Maybe there is only a few seconds left and R is down by more than 2 and the only way to win the game would be a touchdown and their best chance is a blocked punt so they would want to try and force a rekick....

CalhounLJ · « **Reply #18 on:** July 22, 2019, 12:44:15 PM »

Quote from: Derek Teigen on July 22, 2019, 11:15:08 AM

more yardage? I'm seeing that both intentional (illegal kick) and (muff) carry the same exact penalty. Just thinking the illegal kick should be more costly.

A MUFF IS NEVER A FOUL.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #19 on:** July 22, 2019, 01:04:22 PM »

Quote from: Derek Teigen on July 22, 2019, 11:15:08 AM

more yardage? I'm seeing that both intentional (illegal kick) and (muff) carry the same exact penalty. Just thinking the illegal kick should be more costly.

They don't carry the same penalty- as there is no penalty if unintentional - only the results of the PLAY are the same. Sort of like IG in the EZ. IG = IFP = running play = safety accept or decline. I recall a proposal to add the penalty to the succeeding spot only once and it had very little support. A strong majority felt that a safety, itself, was enough and the original carry-over rationale was to prevent cheap fouls by members of the team being scored upon go unpunished.