PF on kick receiver?

[Rob S]

On a punt, the receiver muffs the punt and gets hit shortly after.  Was the contact enough for a PF (NFHS)?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7Rl-iQPCyBA

[maven]

That's definitely IHC, and possibly flagrant. Also borderline KCI.

Reminds me of a play from Sumstine's clinic where he argues that such hits are flagrant and need to be called to get these hits out of the game.

[AlUpstateNY]

Sometimes film greatly improves the view of the action, this isn't one of them.  Both the receiver and the defender were moving, fast, in directly opposite (collision) directions, and once the ball is muffed, BOTH have equal rights to the ball.  The clear responsibility of K is to provide R with an opportunity to catch the ball. 

This would be a really tough call for the covering official, but one I'd support either way.

[Atlanta Blue]

I see the IHC, that's clear.  And I could even see making it a flagrant hit.

But it doesn't come close to KCI in FED rules.  There was no fair catch call, so the receiver's protection ends as soon as he TOUCHES, not POSSESSES the ball.  If you don't want to be hit, call for a fair catch.

[maven]

But it doesn't come close to KCI in FED rules.  There was no fair catch call, so the receiver's protection ends as soon as he TOUCHES, not POSSESSES the ball.  If you don't want to be hit, call for a fair catch.

I don't know where you get this, AB. The receiver is entitled to an "unmolested opportunity" to field the kick. 6.5.6D

Our (state) interpretation is that 'opportunity' extends beyond the initial touch to the completion of the catch. Hitting R as he is catching the kick is a foul. On these grounds alone it is at least "close" to KCI.

That said, I agree that if R muffed the kick, then he can legally be contacted. I couldn't tell from the video exactly what happened, whether R muffed it or K knocked it loose.

[Curious]

I don't know where you get this, AB. The receiver is entitled to an "unmolested opportunity" to field the kick. 6.5.6D

Our (state) interpretation is that 'opportunity' extends beyond the initial touch to the completion of the catch. Hitting R as he is catching the kick is a foul. On these grounds alone it is at least "close" to KCI.

That said, I agree that if R muffed the kick, then he can legally be contacted. I couldn't tell from the video exactly what happened, whether R muffed it or K knocked it loose.

AB, Mav's right regarding an "unmolested opportunity"; but his state's interp is more like what I understand the NCAA's is - and I understand as a Kicker's coach, you'd take that position....

Mav, if the protection extends to the "completion of the catch", how can you say you that you agree that if muffed, he can be legally contacted - unless you disagree with your state's interpretation?

[maven]

Mav, if the protection extends to the "completion of the catch", how can you say you that you agree that if muffed, he can be legally contacted - unless you disagree with your state's interpretation?

Right, so once he muffs it, his opportunity to catch the kick has ended and he may legally be contacted by K. Now he has the opportunity to recover the (perhaps not yet grounded) muff. The status of the ball as a kick is not relevant to this interp: the 'opportunity to catch the kick' is the initial opportunity.

The NCAA rule is substantially the same for this play, which is not a FC: the receiver's protection ends after a muff. NCAA 6-4-1-c

NCAA protects the B receiver after a muff only if he has signaled fair catch and only if the kick may still be caught (ungrounded). NCAA 6-5-1-b

[Atlanta Blue]

6.5.6D talks about impeding R's right BEFORE the ball has been touched, not after.

6-5-6 says that K may not obstruct R's path to the ball.  It also says that without a fair catch, that right does not apply "after a scrimmage kick has been TOUCHED (my emphasis) by a receiver".  It says nothing about "possessed".  Without a fair catch signal, K is free to fairly tackle R as soon as he TOUCHES a scrimmage kick.

[maven]

6.5.6D talks about impeding R's right BEFORE the ball has been touched, not after.

6-5-6 says that K may not obstruct R's path to the ball.  It also says that without a fair catch, that right does not apply "after a scrimmage kick has been TOUCHED (my emphasis) by a receiver".  It says nothing about "possessed".  Without a fair catch signal, K is free to fairly tackle R as soon as he TOUCHES a scrimmage kick.

Right, so there's some slippage between the language of the rule prohibiting contact with R prior to touching the ball and the case prohibiting contact that hinders R's opportunity to make the catch. The latter prohibition presumably lasts longer (though does not contradict the other, since it includes it).

Our state interpreter has made it clear that the 'opportunity to make the catch' is of longer duration than just the initial touch of the kick. Hitting R as he touches the kick does not afford him an "unmolested opportunity" to make the catch.

[Atlanta Blue]

Our state interpreter has made it clear that the 'opportunity to make the catch' is of longer duration than just the initial touch of the kick.

And ours has done the opposite.  If R touches the ball, he is subject to an otherwise legal tackle.

[SouthGARef]

And ours has done the opposite.  If R touches the ball, he is subject to an otherwise legal tackle.

How so, where, and is it in writing?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your interpretation (and perhaps the state's) but this is part of the problem at times. Things get discussed in one circle - often times at one particular state clinic - but that info doesn't get shared with the rest of the state.

[Atlanta Blue]

How so, where, and is it in writing?

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your interpretation (and perhaps the state's) but this is part of the problem at times. Things get discussed in one circle - often times at one particular state clinic - but that info doesn't get shared with the rest of the state.

In writing, not that I know.

By whom?  Dennis, a year or two ago at a Mechanics Clinic in Atlanta.  And I'm the one that brought it up.

[maven]

And I'm the one that brought it up.

There's that other shoe!

[SouthGARef]

In writing, not that I know.

By whom?  Dennis, a year or two ago at a Mechanics Clinic in Atlanta.  And I'm the one that brought it up.

Problem is that unless you were at that mechanics clinic in Atlanta a year or two ago, you don't have that "interpretation". And seeing as enrollment at that camp was probably nowhere near 10% of officials in this state, you begin having problems.

There are so many "interpretations" going around without being put in writing, it makes our job much more difficult. I had a coach last year tell me the "Dallas set" was illegal at all times. Said the officials in that area had told him it was an "interpretation" from the state. Either he was lying, misheard, or it was something that was said at that particular state clinic that didn't get distributed to all members.

Case in point: "A1 is in position to receive a shotgun snap five yards behind center. Offensive lineman A76 is in a two point stance. Immediately at the snap, A76 drops low and blocks defensive lineman B54 below the waist. This is an illegal block below the waist."

This has been on the rules test a couple of times and the correct answer has been for the block to be an IBW, despite the fact that it's pretty clearly legal under the case book writing (2.17.2 SITUATION E). The state "interpretation" is that if an offensive lineman is in a two point stance, he can't block below the waist - even immediately. But it's not in writing anywhere, so we're sort of in a "limbo" state. The first time I took the test and that question was in there, I answered the question "false". When it got marked wrong, I looked it up and confirmed through the NFHS casebook. When I pointed it out to my association secretary, he said it was this state's "interpretation". But how am I, and other officials, supposed to know that if it's not distributed to all officials?

I understand the difficulties and complexities in trying to run a state with 27(?) different officials associations and trying to get all of them all the information you can. I understand that most of the times this is just stuff that comes up - one official/chapter asks a question and it gets an answer, and no one feels it's important enough to send to everyone, etc. My point is just that at times I feel like there are a ton of "interpretations" that I hear one week that may or may not be actually true because they're not put in writing anywhere.

/rant

[Curious]

There are so many "interpretations" going around without being put in writing, it makes our job much more difficult.

+1

I had a coach last year tell me the "Dallas set" was illegal at all times. Said the officials in that area had told him it was an "interpretation" from the state. Either he was lying, misheard, or it was something that was said at that particular state clinic that didn't get distributed to all members.

Most likely "misheard" (I hope)...but,as for the "Dallas" - or any other boarder line set - our (Michigan) state direction is, unless it done on virtually every play, it is considered illegal.

Case in point: "A1 is in position to receive a shotgun snap five yards behind center. Offensive lineman A76 is in a two point stance. Immediately at the snap, A76 drops low and blocks defensive lineman B54 below the waist. This is an illegal block below the waist."

This has been on the rules test a couple of times and the correct answer has been for the block to be an IBW, despite the fact that it's pretty clearly legal under the case book writing (2.17.2 SITUATION E). The state "interpretation" is that if an offensive lineman is in a two point stance, he can't block below the waist -even immediately[color]But it's not in writing anywhere, so we're sort of in a "limbo" state. But how am I, and other officials, supposed to know that if it's not distributed to all officials?

Great point...but I can only conclude that your interpreter, determined that the ball is out of the FBZ simply due the shotgun/pistol formation.  We have received the opposite interpretation.  "Immediately" is okay!

My point is just that at times I feel like there are a ton of "interpretations" that I hear one week that may or may not be actually true because they're not put in writing anywhere.

Completely understand your frustration- as I've been down this road with our state interpreters.  sometimes they put out bulletins but it is hit or miss...

/rant

[Atlanta Blue]

SouthGaRef:

I can sympathize, and to make it worse, it wasn't in front of the whole clinic, it was in a side conversation, which I have with Dennis on a regular basis.  Now that he isn't in charge of officials, don't know where I'll get my rulings!

The two point stance interp was in writing at one point, it was actually part of a powerpoint presentation, with pictures.  Don't know whatever happened to that presentation.

And your guess of the number of associations made me go look it up: 23.  Add to that over 400 HEAD coaches, and probably 3000 assistant coaches, and it's a wonder we don't have more disagreements during games!  Probably proves the old adage, "You play 80% of the game with 20% of the rules."

[SanDiegoStryker]

I don't know where you get this, AB. The receiver is entitled to an "unmolested opportunity" to field the kick. 6.5.6

Doesn't 6-5-6 clearly state - This prohibition does not apply after a scrimmage kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time of touching. 

[maven]

Doesn't 6-5-6 clearly state - This prohibition does not apply after a scrimmage kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time of touching. 

Yes. So?

Allowing R an unmolested opportunity to catch the kick is still after the touch. The issue is, how long is "after?"



maven

[dch]

Re kick catching interference -- it seems clear that the rules book, the case book, and the Redding guide (pg 67) all agree.  It matters what happens before R touches the kick - not after.  R's protection ends if the kick is touched and not immediately caught.  R looses his protection if he muffs the ball (even just a little) - he may be legally contacted immediately.  The official's ruling re KCI should be based on K's actions prior to R touching the ball.  By rule, K can not obstruct R's path to the ball.  The "no obstruction" rule does not apply after the ball has been touched by R (beyond the NZ for a scrimmage kick).

[maven]

Re kick catching interference -- it seems clear that the rules book, the case book, and the Redding guide (pg 67) all agree.  It matters what happens before R touches the kick - not after. 

That's fine, if your state interpreter agrees. And I certainly respect the interpretation, which is completely plausible on its face.

If you work in my state, you'll want to do it our way.