Batting a kick that hasn't crossed the NZ?

[James]

Another batting a kick question

4&G from B's 4. The FG attempt is blocked in the NZ. The ball landes on the B6 and takes a high bounce where it is batted by B-78 in the direction of his EZ. The ball hits the ground at the B1 and is then recovered in B's EZ before the ball touches the ground in the EZ.


My problem is 6.3.2.a
ARTICLE 2. a. No inbounds player of the kicking team shall touch a scrimmage
kick that has crossed the neutral zone before it touches an opponent. Such illegal
touching is a violation that, when the ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team
the privilege of taking the ball at the spot of the violation (Exception: Rules 6-3-4
and 8-4-2-b) (A.R. 2-11-2-I and A.R. 6-3-2-I).

Does the touching by an opponent have to be AFTER the ball has crossed the NZ, or are the two criteria seperate? In this case we have a kick touched by B and has crossed the NZ. We don't have a kick touched by B after it has crossed the NZ.

[Kalle]

Safety, no matter if recovered by A (ball is dead when recovered) or B (if the ball becomes dead in the end zone). The ball must be touched by a team B player after it has crossed the neutral zone for team A to be able to legally recover it. See A.R. 6-3-2-III. The impetus is charged to team B due to the bat.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Have to agree that this will result in a safety.

[Morningrise]

Does the touching by an opponent have to be AFTER the ball has crossed the NZ, or are the two criteria seperate?

B has to touch it *after* it crosses the NZ. Otherwise, any "partially blocked" kick would be a free ball for A to recover.

[Morningrise]

Safety, no matter if recovered by A (ball is dead when recovered) or B (if the ball becomes dead in the end zone). The ball must be touched by a team B player after it has crossed the neutral zone for team A to be able to legally recover it. See A.R. 6-3-2-III. The impetus is charged to team B due to the bat.

In the case where A recovers the ball, A has committed illegal touching in the end zone. If B accepts the IT privilege, is it still a safety, or does B get the ball at the B-20? What if A had batted the ball in the EZ before also recovering there?

EDIT: Forgot this is a field goal attempt. So 8-4-2-b may also apply. Does 8-5-1-a (safety) override 8-4-2-b (succeeding spot after missed field goal)? I seem to recall the answer is yes, but there's still the illegal touching privilege to consider.

[Kalle]

In the case where A recovers the ball, A has committed illegal touching in the end zone. If B accepts the IT privilege, is it still a safety, or does B get the ball at the B-20? What if A had batted the ball in the EZ before also recovering there?

As I understand it, the IT privilege merely decides where the play is deemed to have ended, and any rule governing the end point still applies - thus a safety.

If A bats the ball in the EZ before recovering, this is illegal batting, 15 yards from the previous spot (no LOD). Team B most likely accepts the penalty, as otherwise it would still be a safety.

[TxGrayhat]

In the case where A recovers the ball, A has committed illegal touching in the end zone. If B accepts the IT privilege, is it still a safety, or does B get the ball at the B-20? What if A had batted the ball in the EZ before also recovering there?
EDIT: Forgot this is a field goal attempt. So 8-4-2-b may also apply. Does 8-5-1-a (safety) override 8-4-2-b (succeeding spot after missed field goal)? I seem to recall the answer is yes, but there's still the illegal touching privilege to consider.

Since the ball touched the ground untouched by b beyond the NZ couldn't the ball be dead there before A had an opputunity to bat it ?

[Morningrise]

As I understand it, the IT privilege merely decides where the play is deemed to have ended, and any rule governing the end point still applies - thus a safety.

If A bats the ball in the EZ before recovering, this is illegal batting, 15 yards from the previous spot (no LOD). Team B most likely accepts the penalty, as otherwise it would still be a safety.

If the batting is illegal touching, then it's not a foul (6-3-11). I brought up this wrinkle because 6-3-11 explicitly says the spot of the violation is deemed to be the B-20 in this case. So wouldn't that be where B takes the ball? The original result of the play is a safety (8-5-1-a) but surely accepting the IT privilege trumps the result of the play.

That's how my InstaRef engine rules, at any rate, so if I'm wrong, let me know so I can modify the program:

B bats grounded FG behind NZ, A recovers in B's EZ
B bats grounded FG behind NZ, A bats kick in B's EZ before recovering there


(By the way, in case you're wondering, I was trying to rewrite the InstaRef code over the summer but I ran out of time, so the program is a year out of date and doesn't incorporate the 2010 rule changes. Hopefully I can get cracking and bring out a new version for 2011.)

[Welpe]

I agree with Morningrise.  Why wouldn't this be Illegal Touching since touching precedes possession (assuming recovery by A)?

[Diablo]

In the case where A recovers the ball, A has committed illegal touching in the end zone. If B accepts the IT privilege, is it still a safety, or does B get the ball at the B-20? What if A had batted the ball in the EZ before also recovering there?

EDIT: Forgot this is a field goal attempt. So 8-4-2-b may also apply. Does 8-5-1-a (safety) override 8-4-2-b (succeeding spot after missed field goal)? I seem to recall the answer is yes, but there's still the illegal touching privilege to consider.

I think the IT privilege would apply if Team A batted it backward from the EZ (a la 6-3-11) or recovered the batted ball before it landed in the EZ.

But, in the absence of illegal touching, I am currently clueless as to whether "safety" or 8-4-2-b would be applied.  Need to ruminate for a while on that one.

[comicref]

I think the IT privilege would apply if Team A batted it backward from the EZ (a la 6-3-11) or recovered the batted ball before it landed in the EZ.

But, in the absence of illegal touching, I am currently clueless as to whether "safety" or 8-4-2-b would be applied.  Need to ruminate for a while on that one.

I agree the IT privilege applies whether A batted it from the EZ (before it touched the ground there) or in the field of play.

On your second point, I would hope that 8-7-2b would trump 8-4-2b in the minds of the rules committee since they likely didn't feel it necessary to address a scenario in which B would impart a new impetus to (and bat toward their own EZ) an unsuccessful field goal without touching it beyond the NZ.

However, I'm just guessing here. The 2 rules do seem rather incongruous in this situation.

[Kalle]

If the batting is illegal touching, then it's not a foul (6-3-11). I brought up this wrinkle because 6-3-11 explicitly says the spot of the violation is deemed to be the B-20 in this case. So wouldn't that be where B takes the ball? The original result of the play is a safety (8-5-1-a) but surely accepting the IT privilege trumps the result of the play.

You're right, it's IT, not a foul, with a specific end of kick spot, so I agree with you, touchback in this scenario.