IBB by kicking team on scrimmage kicks

[sj_31]

Please just post the link to another thread if already covered, but wanted to ensure I understand the rule correctly.

This thread assumes that the action by the kicking team is NOT a personal foul in nature

K 4/10 @ 50. K1's punt is bouncing at the R-10 yard line. K2 blocks R1 in the back (again, not UNR) so that he can get to the ball to down it before it crosses the goal line. Legal? 9-3-5-b states that a player may block in the back [...to...recover a ball that he may legally possess.]

While it might be first touching (unlike illegal touching in NCAA), it is not ILLEGAL for K2 to touch or possess this ball, correct? Therefore, is the IBB action legal in NFHS?

[skip1]

I say Illegal Block in the Back. K cannot catch or recover a scrimmage kick that has gone beyond the ENZ that has not been touched by R

6.2.4:Any K player may catch or recover a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the neutral zone or the expanded neutral zone, provided such kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time of touching.

[sj_31]

I agree that they can't KEEP the ball unless it's touched by R, but is it ILLEGAL for them to touch it which is the wording in 9-3-5-b? 6-2-4 doesn't say anything about it being ILLEGAL per se. Two different concepts here--whether K has the right to next put the ball in play--or not--per 6-2-4 and whether they can IBB based on the wording in Rule 9.

[AlUpstateNY]

I agree that they can't KEEP the ball unless it's touched by R, but is it ILLEGAL for them to touch it which is the wording in 9-3-5-b? 6-2-4 doesn't say anything about it being ILLEGAL per se. Two different concepts here--whether K has the right to next put the ball in play--or not--per 6-2-4 and whether they can IBB based on the wording in Rule 9.

Much of what we do is judgment, and 9-3-5-b warns, "A player shall not clip or block an opponent in the back EXCEPT: (b) Using hands or arms to contact an opponent above the waist in warding off a blocker or when attempting to reach a runner, or catch or recover a loose ball which he may legally TOUCH or possess.".

NF:2-5-b further clarifies what a defensive player may legally do pursuing a loose ball.

NF: 2-3 defines "Blocking" as "obstructing an opponent".

The judgment involved relates to what is being observed, is the defender (K) actually pursuing a loose ball (which he would be LEGALLY entitled to touch), or is he "Blocking" an opponent in the back?

That's our judgment and call, and we should be able to understand and differentiate between the two possibilities - as it relates to the specific contact we are observing (ONLY).

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, 9-3-5b is intended to make it "open season" when GOING FOR a loose ball.
IMHO, 9-3-5b is not intended to allow what would be "cheap shots" if the ball wasn't loose.
IMHO, it would be a judgement call of : Was the player trying to recover/touch the ball or was the player just happy with illegally contacting the opponent.
IMHO, YankeeAL is correct on this one.
             

[Atlanta Blue]

The judgment has already been made.  From the original post:

K2 blocks R1 in the back (again, not UNR) so that he can get to the ball to down it before it crosses the goal line.

That makes his (non USC) contact legal.

[bama_stripes]

Good question!

Is it legal for K to touch this ball?  If by "legal" we mean that
there are no consequences for such touching, then the answer
must be "no", since R will have the option of either taking the
result of the play, or putting the ball in play at the spot of
first touching.

[Ralph Damren]

True, AB, the OP spells out the contact was on the way to downing the kick and is what 9-3-5b is for. I was merely trying to point out that the fact the ball is loose isn't reason to disregard illegal contact if getting to the ball isn't the player's prime objective.

I do notice, however; that your Braves are returning to Boston (but for only 2 games). I vaguely recall (age 7) when they left Boston after the 1953 season. I was torn then as to wanting to grow up to be like Warren Spahn or Ted Williams (as I, both lefties) the move made it easy, I would be like Ted Williams !!

  Ted Williams liked Moxie (so the ad said )
 After several years of gagging, I learned to like Moxie,too .

That was the only thing The Splendid Splinter/spitter and I had in common....

I offer the following opening to my next 10 posts if the Braves win the 4 game (2 in Boston, 2 in Atlanta) series with : Braves rule - Sox suck - -will you reciprocate??
 

[Atlanta Blue]

Sure, but I don't think either team can claim they "rule" right now.  You are 10 games below .500 and have lost 6 in a row.  We are 3 games below .500, have no bullpen, and just optioned our starting catcher to AAA.  Yesterday, we score 8 runs and lose!

How about, "Braves suck, but the Sox suck more!"

Ted also endorsed Chesterfield cigarettes.  Please tell me you didn't follow him down that road as well!

[Ralph Damren]

Sure, but I don't think either team can claim they "rule" right now.  You are 10 games below .500 and have lost 6 in a row.  We are 3 games below .500, have no bullpen, and just optioned our starting catcher to AAA.  Yesterday, we score 8 runs and lose!

How about, "Braves suck, but the Sox suck more!"

Ted also endorsed Chesterfield cigarettes.  Please tell me you didn't follow him down that road as well!

Babe Ruth League - age 13 - my friends and I watched Ted spit up a big ward of tobacco on his way to bat - some of my dumber friends and I bought some for our next game - selling to minors wasn't a big deal back then - we tried to chew before the game - we all got sick before the game - we decided then that what Ted did wasn't necessarily good for us - a turning point of my life, never smoked (except for a few celebratory cigars after World Series, Super bowl, Stanley Cup and NBA championships --- or just to shoo away the black flies & 'skitters).

You're on :
       Braves suck but Sox suck more..
                               or
      Sox suck but Braves suck more.

[prab]

How about, "Braves suck, but the Sox suck more!"

Being a Milwaukee Brewers fan, I guess that I should stay out of this Braves v Red Sox discussion.  However, being a Brewers fan, there is less angst in October when your guys were mathematically eliminated in June.

[Ralph Damren]

      ....Red Sox REALLY suck..... (just practicing )

[bama_stripes]

Headline in our local fish-wrapper this AM:

"Braves Shut Out Red Sox, 4-2".