Kick-catch Interference

[MBK]

Here's a quiz question from the May 2014 issue of Referee Magazine:

Fourth and 10 at team K's 20 yardline. K1's punt is in flight and R2 is in position to catch the kick at team K's 45 yardline. K3 is close to R2 but does not make contact. R2 must step around K3 to make the catch. R2 is downed at team K's 43 yardline.

a) No problem
b) Kick-catch interference only if R2 gave a valid fair catch signal
c) Kick-catch interference whether or not R2 gave a valid fair catch signal
d) After the penalty is enforced, team R will have the option to free kick

According to the answer key, the correct answers are b and d (6.5.6b, 6.5.6 D).

I don't see how b can be correct. The rule book says "This prohibition [obstructing R's path to the ball] applies even when no fair-catch signal is made." Seems like the answer key is wrong unless I'm missing something.

Any thoughts?

[Atlanta Blue]

Any thoughts?

Yes.  Spend your money on a Redding's Guide rather than this worthless ragazine.

[FLAHL]

MBK, I posted a similar question last year and received quite a few responses similar to AB's. My subscription is still in effect, and I had the same this-can't-be-right reaction when I read that quiz question.  It seems as if the magazine can't be relied upon to be correct, so I suggest continuing to do what you did - check the rule book when you're not sure, and don't believe everything you read in the magazine.  I agree that Reddings is a far better use of your money. I buy it every other year. 

[bama_stripes]

It seems as if the magazine can't be relied upon to be correct... and don't believe everything you read in the magazine.

I used to try to reach the editor when they would make an especially egregious mistake on their baseball quizzes (usually one per month), but finally gave up -- and didn't renew my subscription.

[VALJ]

I'm with Bama.  I let my subscription expire when I realized that each month they had one ruling that would need to be corrected the following issue. 

[Rulesman]

The only thing they are really good for is the liability insurance that comes with a NASO membership. Some feature stories are good, but when it comes to rule interpretations, I just flip the page to the next one.

[Ralph Damren]

I enjoy Referee Magazine for the officiating human interest stories, the hands-on "how to" advice and a good read. I enjoy the NFHS rules publications for rules and interpretations. I've enjoyed and subscribed to both since my early days of zebradom.They are like most of us....they get most of the calls right most of the time ...May thy fellow zebra who has never tossed a in error , toss his subscription renewal in thy trash.....

[SanDiegoStryker]

We all know that Referee magazine is not the rulebook. They are known to have incorrect answers sometimes, but I don't think that makes the magazine trash. We should not take anything we read as infallible. Anytime you take a quiz and don't agree with the answer it is a good exercise to pull out the rulebook and research it. Whenever I get a different answer to a quiz I like to discuss it with the study group. Sometimes it can be a good starting point for a healthy discussion.

[HLinNC]

I had a brief, trial subscription.  I understand mistakes are made.  They just seem to have too many to be coming for the national "mouthpiece for officiating" (NASO).

I wouldn't let that stop me form subscribing.  I just didn't take it because the only sport I officiate is football and don't really care to spend my free reading time on other sports.

[Rulesman]

I understand mistakes are made.  They just seem to have too many to be coming for the national "mouthpiece for officiating" (NASO).

[Curious]

I'm not trying to be an apologist for Referee Magazine. I do understand that too many mistakes appear in the periodical and that it's not a substitute for Redding.

 I just want to ask; how many of us would actually call KCI in this instance (kick caught cleanly with no contact before)?

I concur that the answer given does not conform to the rule reference (perhaps "no problem" is the right answer) but was the receiver actually disadvantaged here?  Sometimes, common sense trumps the letter of the law...

That said, as mentioned earlier, the answers that appear - anywhere/anytime - should never be taken as "gospel" even if we agree with them.  Further, the errors that do occur shouldn't keep us from subscribing to the magazine.  There are often insights to make us all THINK - which is what it's all about.

MAYBE, just maybe, the errors are intentional just to prompt us to dig deeper....

   

[Osric Pureheart]

Referee Magazine's slogan: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DEsqGOHo0nI