Free Kick/Illegal Block Philosophy

[000635547]

Primary rule at issue:
9-3-7:
ART. 7 . . . No member of the kicking team shall initiate contact to (block) an opponent on a free kick until:

The legal kick has traveled 10 yards;

The kicking team is eligible to recover a free-kicked ball; or

The receiving team initiates a block within the neutral zone.


A member of my association insists that there is a common "philosophical" interpretation that any member of R that enters the neutral zone after the kick is considered to be initiating a block, and thus it is legal for K to block them. More specifically, there is no judgement call to be made regarding if that player appears to attempting to recover a short kick (eg, diving for the ball); they are automatically "initiating a block" by virtue of being in the neutral zone.

I think this is a wild interpretation not supported by the plain text of the rule. The case book doesn't really have any cases that really fit the scenario. And, despite my thoughts on this ruling, that official is otherwise a 99% correct official that I'm always happy to see on my crew. So, I want to hear from other associations; have you ever heard something like this?

[SCline]

This is the 1% of the time that official is incorrect. That is not a good interpretation.

[bama_stripes]

Are you sure that you’re quoting him correctly?  The way I’ve heard it is that an R player in the NZ and not going for the ball is considered to be initiating a block.

[bossman72]

Primary rule at issue:
9-3-7:
ART. 7 . . . No member of the kicking team shall initiate contact to (block) an opponent on a free kick until:

The legal kick has traveled 10 yards;

The kicking team is eligible to recover a free-kicked ball; or

The receiving team initiates a block within the neutral zone.


A member of my association insists that there is a common "philosophical" interpretation that any member of R that enters the neutral zone after the kick is considered to be initiating a block, and thus it is legal for K to block them. More specifically, there is no judgement call to be made regarding if that player appears to attempting to recover a short kick (eg, diving for the ball); they are automatically "initiating a block" by virtue of being in the neutral zone.

I think this is a wild interpretation not supported by the plain text of the rule. The case book doesn't really have any cases that really fit the scenario. And, despite my thoughts on this ruling, that official is otherwise a 99% correct official that I'm always happy to see on my crew. So, I want to hear from other associations; have you ever heard something like this?

I agree with you.  You have to judge intent.  You also have to actually block someone to initiate a block.

You can tell passive vs active body language to determine if they're going for the ball or they're going to block.