Let's see who can crack this one...

[SCHSref]

But so is this play:

Returner breaks free and is running down the sideline for an apparent touchdown.  A "player" (uniformed team member) on the bench steps onto the field and tackles him.  Covered under the rules as Illegal Participation, yet a TD can be awarded.

How do you reconcile that with the blocked FG in this post?


ADDED IN EDIT: Ralph got to my point.  I don't like it, I think it's a slippery slope, but IN THIS CASE, I think awarding the FG is the right call.

I'm going to change my mind and disagree with both you and Ralph. I'm not awarding them a field goal because unfair act specifically covers things that are not covered in the rule book and since there is a rule for what was done in the op, I'm sticking with the safety

[NCVAReferee]

I have PSK foul on this one.  Foul behind the basic spot in the EZ results in safety if accepted.  Foul is for violation of 9-4-3e.  R may legally bat ball away from goal.  Not sure where unfair act comes into play?

[Atlanta Blue]

Not sure where unfair act comes into play?

Because they intentionally fouled to block a kick that R will not be able to retry.  No team should be able to benefit from an intentional foul.  The example in the case book is a QB from A that intentionally commits a USC to stop the clock when they would not have been able to get a play off before the clock expires.

There is a rule for what he did (it was a USC foul).  But the R can set the ball and run the clock and not let A snap it under the unfair act rule.

[NCVAReferee]

What rule reference do you argue is applicable here?

[Atlanta Blue]

What rule reference do you argue is applicable here?

Rules 9-9-1, 9-9-5, Case 9.9.1.A

I said, I don't like it, it's a slippery slope when the R gets to decide on "equitable" results.  But this MIGHT be a case where awarding the FG is the equitable result.

[Kalle]

Considering that batting the ball is a normal football move, I wouldn't invoke rule 9-9-1 (or 9-2-3-c in NCAA) here. If your logic is that it is an intentional foul preventing a score, consider this scenario:

1/10 from A-50. Score is A21-B26. There are three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter then the ball is snapped. A12 throws a long pass to B-25 where A98 is about to catch the ball. Just before the ball gets there B33, who is already behind A98, stumbles. While falling down he grabs A98 from the waist pulling him down as well. The ball falls incomplete. The next nearest defender was 30 yards from A98. Time expires during the down.

This is also a situation where an intentional foul prevents team A from scoring. Are you going to invoke 9-9-1 here?

[Atlanta Blue]

Considering that batting the ball is a normal football move, I wouldn't invoke rule 9-9-1 (or 9-2-3-c in NCAA) here. If your logic is that it is an intentional foul preventing a score, consider this scenario:

1/10 from A-50. Score is A21-B26. There are three seconds remaining in the fourth quarter then the ball is snapped. A12 throws a long pass to B-25 where A98 is about to catch the ball. Just before the ball gets there B33, who is already behind A98, stumbles. While falling down he grabs A98 from the waist pulling him down as well. The ball falls incomplete. The next nearest defender was 30 yards from A98. Time expires during the down.

This is also a situation where an intentional foul prevents team A from scoring. Are you going to invoke 9-9-1 here?

But in that case, A is going to retain the ball, get 15 yards and get another play.  In this case, they don't get the score AND they don't get to keep the ball.

There's a simple solution: have PSK not apply on field goals.  It already doesn't apply on tries or SUCCESSFUL field goals.  Just remove the word "successful" or further clarify and say PSK doesn't apply on attempted field goals that cross the goal line.

[NCVAReferee]

Do you really think 9-10-1 applies considering there is a rule that already covers what R did??  I,m having a hard time coming off 9-4-3e...

[Ralph Damren]

It's Friday.....

  ..on Friday I tend to have humble opinions...

IMHO, our rule book has two RARELY used "nuclear options"...

  1-1-6 : If there isn't a rule that covers it, WH gets to make one up.
     I started officiating in 1969 and had to use once : Wing on opposite side of play thought play was dead and began to signal #7 -dead ball- as runner went for TD - but DIDN'T blow whistle. Where there no such critter as an inadvertent signal and after discussion with my crew, ruled that no defenders had reacted to the signal and, under 1-1-6, the score was to stand.

   I started attending the NFHS Football Rules Committee meetings in 1993, and have only heard of it being applied several years ago in Tennessee when 2 football appeared on the field during the same play with each being recovered and returned for TDs by EACH TEAM. They applied 1-1-6 and treated the play under the IW rule to be applied when the 2nd ball showed up.

9-10-1 : If the provided rules don't cover the play serverely enough (as in the two in this topic where a possible score was prevented by an unfair act ) or an unfair act that isn't covered in the book ("where's the tee?", "this is the wrong ball !", "the prom queen's dress just fell off !!" and the like.

I do not recall ever  for an unfair act under 9-10-1, it is at least as uncommon as applying 1-1-6.

We will never publish a laundry list of unfair acts, as if we listed 100, some crafty coach would come up with #101.

IMHO, you'll know an unfair act when you see one...

[NCVAReferee]

Use of 9-10-1 requires there to be no other rule to cover what happened in the play.  My position is 9-4-3e does cover the foul in the play.  I'm assuming everyone's heartburn is because R climbed on top of a teammate to get in better position, not that R batted the ball away from the goal. If the play involved R only batting the ball away from the goal, we'd have nothing and would move on the the R-20.

I'm interested to hear perspectives on how this does not fall under 9-4-3e.  I think it's clear it does.

[bossman72]

I don't think this should be an unfair acts play.  It is what it is.

If you're going to call this unfair acts, then you have to call the play where the 7 foot player jumps and swats it away from the crossbar an unfair act play too.

[bbeagle]

If you're going to call this unfair acts, then you have to call the play where the 7 foot player jumps and swats it away from the crossbar an unfair act play too.

I don't think they're the same.

Another 'unfair act':

What if a FG is going towards the left upright, and a 7-foot player whacks under the crossbar causing the left post to move and wobble, and the ball bounces off the left upright and doesn't score?

Should the referee decide whether or not it 'should' have went through on deciding to award a field goal or ignoring it if he thought it would be wide anyways? Or would this 'always' be an unfair act?

There is a rule regarding what happens when a player touches the field goal post: 2-29-1 (out of bounds).

[Ralph Damren]

 9-6-4a : B69 wanders out on field during a play and bumps into blocker A70 = illegal participation , 15 yds tacked onto end of run if running play.

9-6-4a + 9-10-1 : B69 enters field during a play and makes a TD saving tackle on A30 = unfair act, white hat may award score.

9-4-3e : Tugboat jumps on teammate Bubba's back as in topic, Bubba's knees buckle and both fall flat as kick sails thru pipes = K may the penalty, moving the ball to R's 5 with new series, or tack 15 onto kickoff.

9-4-3e + 9-10-1 : Tugboat jumps on teammate Bubba's back, as in topic, and blocks a potentionally good field goal = unfair act, white hat may award score.

7'2" Joe "Graffe" Jones stands under goal post as Hans trys a long field goal. As kick sails toward crossbar, Joe times his leap and bats a potentionally good field goal away = fair act...and may have caught the 5'2" prom queen's eye .

IMHO, 1-1-6 is when something happens that isn't in the rule book. 9-10-1 is when the equitable enforcement (such as, but not limited to, illegally preventing a score) isn't in the rule book for a foul committed. Over the years there have been a few TDs awarded when someone comes off the bench to make a TD saving tackle. I assume 910-1 (used to be 9-9-1) or something similar in another code was applied. I would think we treat an unfair act on a field goal the same.

Consider : 9-4-3f (throw a helmet to trip an opponent); if such an act tripped an opponent on his way for a TD, would you consider awarding a TD under the "unfair act rule" ? I would.

[Kalle]

But in that case, A is going to retain the ball, get 15 yards and get another play.  In this case, they don't get the score AND they don't get to keep the ball.

Well, in the OP team A does get the ball back after B kicks it to them, plus they get two points. Obviously, if the time has expired, team B kicker probably would just slightly touch the ball and then fall on it.

In my play, I doubt that team A likes the fact that they have to run another long play to score, when they were extremely likely to score if team B didn't foul.

I don't really see any downside in adding unsuccessful field goals to the list of kick plays where PSK does not apply. Team B/R will get the ball at the previous spot if they don't touch the ball at all, so if they really want to return a short kick, they should be prepared not to foul. The entire situation is different from a punt where team A is voluntarily giving the ball up - in a FG attempt team A is attempting to score and retain the ball (for the kickoff).

[bbeagle]

7'2" Joe "Graffe" Jones stands under goal post as Hans trys a long field goal. As kick sails toward crossbar, Joe times his leap and bats a potentionally good field goal away = fair act...and may have caught the 5'2" prom queen's eye .

Why isn't this illegal batting? It's not a block, as it's not occurring at the line of scrimmage.

[Atlanta Blue]

Why isn't this illegal batting? It's not a block, as it's not occurring at the line of scrimmage.

It is illegal, which is why there were 2 fouls in the original post, but since both are PSK, it doesn't solve the problem.

[Ralph Damren]

Why isn't this illegal batting? It's not a block, as it's not occurring at the line of scrimmage.

Redding Study Guide, Example 9-15 ; "Team K's field goal attempt is about to clear the crossbar when R62 jumps and bats the ball to the ground in the end zone where it is recovered and downed by R81.
RULING : The result of the play is a touchback. R62's batting the ball in the end zone is not a foul; the ball was dead when touched. "

NFHS has had a similar case play on occasion.

[sir55]

"What if a FG is going towards the left upright, and a 7-foot player whacks under the crossbar causing the left post to move and wobble, and the ball bounces off the left upright and doesn't score?"

This would not be a problem because the illegal participation foul is an exception to the PSK enforcement. K would be able to enforce the penalty and attempt to kick the FG again. No need for unfair act provisions.

[NCVAReferee]

Reference 6.3.1 Situation B 2016 Case Book regarding batting in this situation.

[bbeagle]

"What if a FG is going towards the left upright, and a 7-foot player whacks under the crossbar causing the left post to move and wobble, and the ball bounces off the left upright and doesn't score?"

This would not be a problem because the illegal participation foul is an exception to the PSK enforcement. K would be able to enforce the penalty and attempt to kick the FG again. No need for unfair act provisions.

I guess you're right. 9-6-2-c: No player shall intentionally go out of bounds during the down and influence the play. Touching the crossbar is going 'out of bounds' and wobbling the goalposts is 'influencing play'.

I guess the same rule would apply when picking up a pylon and throwing it at the ball causing it to miss? Touching the pylon causes the player to go out of bounds?

[Atlanta Blue]

Redding Study Guide, Example 9-15 ; "Team K's field goal attempt is about to clear the crossbar when R62 jumps and bats the ball to the ground in the end zone where it is recovered and downed by R81.
RULING : The result of the play is a touchback. R62's batting the ball in the end zone is not a foul; the ball was dead when touched. "

NFHS has had a similar case play on occasion.

How does that reconcile with 9-7-2:
No player shall bat a loose ball other than a pass or a fumble in flight, or a low scrimmage kick in flight which he is attempting to block in or behind the expanded neutral zone.

Redding's play says the ball was dead when touched.  But the touching (batting) itself was a foul.  It wasn't a dead ball UNTIL it was batted, as a kick that crosses the goal is dead UNLESS it is a scoring attempt.

[Kalle]

How does that reconcile with 9-7-2:
No player shall bat a loose ball other than a pass or a fumble in flight, or a low scrimmage kick in flight which he is attempting to block in or behind the expanded neutral zone.

Redding's play says the ball was dead when touched.  But the touching (batting) itself was a foul.  It wasn't a dead ball UNTIL it was batted, as a kick that crosses the goal is dead UNLESS it is a scoring attempt.

I think the NFHS and NCAA agree in this maxim: touching always precedes batting (or possession). So, as I understand the NFHS rules, when the kick touches anything behind the goal line it becomes dead. Thus, any action after that is moot, so there can be no foul for batting, as it would need to be a live ball foul. Bonus points to an enterprising official who would call delay of game (batting a dead ball), but I don't think that would apply.

[GA Umpire]

How does that reconcile with 9-7-2:
No player shall bat a loose ball other than a pass or a fumble in flight, or a low scrimmage kick in flight which he is attempting to block in or behind the expanded neutral zone.

Here is the case play 6.3.1 SIT B

6.3.1 SITUATION B:

During a field-goal attempt, R1, who is in the end zone, leaps up and blocks the ball away from the crossbar.

RULING: Touchback. The touching by R1 in the end zone causes the ball to become dead, unless the ball caroms through the goal, thus scoring a field goal. This is not illegal batting, as the touching caused the kick to fail. (4-2-2d(2); 6-3-1b)


It allows for 9-7-2 by stating the ball is dead unless it goes through the goal.

[bama_stripes]

OK, I'm late to the party (watching the Blue Angels fly his weekend), but:

On a test, PSK applies.  Safety for K. R free kicks from the R20.

On the field, I'd conveniently forget that PSK applies.  I'd give K a choice of 1/2 the distance from the previous spot, replay the down (or in this case, award a new series) OR take three points.op

I agree with not letting a team benefit from intentionally fouling.  I also believe that merely awarding a field goal doesn't provide enough disincentive to keep R from trying this again.

[Atlanta Blue]

Here is the case play 6.3.1 SIT B

6.3.1 SITUATION B:

During a field-goal attempt, R1, who is in the end zone, leaps up and blocks the ball away from the crossbar.

RULING: Touchback. The touching by R1 in the end zone causes the ball to become dead, unless the ball caroms through the goal, thus scoring a field goal. This is not illegal batting, as the touching caused the kick to fail. (4-2-2d(2); 6-3-1b)


It allows for 9-7-2 by stating the ball is dead unless it goes through the goal.

I agree the case is on point, and would be the right call.  What I don't understand is why the "touching" isn't "batting".  "Touching precedes batting" has no logic at all, the batting IS the touching, it's a single act, not two parts.