Mistake or Just Poor Wording

[Curious]

Ralph, as you're the only one on the committee (that I know of) this probably is more for you .

Reference: CB Play 9.3.8B

Forgive me if this has come up in the past as the play itself has been around forever.

PLAY: During a free kick (including an onside kick attempt): d) after R initiates a block against K in the neutral zone, K recovers the ball. RULING: Legal recovery by K.

This play appears under the "Blocking During A Free Kick" section; but the wording above might imply to, or be inferred by, some that the "recovery" would give K the ball.  I contend that that is only first touching - not a legal recovery by K.  Since R has not yet touched the kick, and (apparently) the kick has not traveled 10 yards, K can recover but would not retain possession (6-1-6).  The blocking/contact restrictions for K (9-3-8) are in effect "until:
1. the legal kick has traveled 10 yards
2.the kicking team is eligible to recover a free-kicked ball
3.the receiving team initiates a block within the NZ"

In this play, R's initiation of a block eliminates K's restriction against blocking - but does not absolve them of their first touching restrictions.

With all that said, Ralph, does this look like an editing omission (they meant to say the ball traveled 10 yards - as in the other options); or did they just "blow" this one?     



     

[prab]

1.  The committee does not make mistakes.  (Refer to the famous "hash marks bisect the yard lines" fiasco of 2009.)

2.  The committee does not word things poorly.  (Refer to the lengthy discussions on this forum regarding the new free kick rules "After the RFP.....")

Therefore it is logical to conclude that Curious is reading the book wrong.  (Although I agree with his analysis.)

Remember what Clem Kiddlehopper said, "I can read reading, but I can't read writing and this reading is wrote rotten."

[Ralph Damren]

The new super-duper, updated version (2014 Case Book,p.74,9.3.8B) reads :" During a free kick (including an onside kick attempt) : (a) R touches the ball PRIOR to it traveling 10 yards after which K contacts R....." The eagle eyes of a fellow committee member must has spotted the glaring absents of R causing the ball to be free .

[Curious]

Many thanks....

[Curious]

The new super-duper, updated version (2014 Case Book,p.74,9.3.8B) reads :" During a free kick (including an onside kick attempt) : (a) R touches the ball PRIOR to it traveling 10 yards after which K contacts R....." The eagle eyes of a fellow committee member must has spotted the glaring absents of R causing the ball to be free .

Ralph, I just re-read your post and I was actually concerned about item (d).  (a) does reflect the R touched the ball prior to it traveling 10 yards but (d) does not.  Did the "eagle-eye" change item (d) in the latest version of the CB?

[Ralph Damren]

Good eye, Curious, I only read (a) saw it was corrected , said a silent praise for the unknown "eagle-eye" and responded to your post. While (a), (b), (c), & (e) seem to be corrected ; (d) escaped the proofreader's pen. 

[VALJ]

Has the eagle eye noticed anything about the wording of the "four players on each side of the ball/kicker" yet?   

[Rulesman]

Has the eagle eye noticed anything about the wording of the "four players on each side of the ball/kicker" yet?   

Ouch!!!

[GA Umpire]

Has the eagle eye noticed anything about the wording of the "four players on each side of the ball/kicker" yet?   

Speaking of the "eagle eye", does anyone know when the report from the interpreter's conference call be released?  It seems the report and subsequent approved rulings (case plays) to resolve misconceptions of content, changes, and not clear wording is usually posted to the NFHS site by now.

Or have I missed it?


 

[CalhounLJ]

Wow, ya'll are ruthless.