Author Topic: "Goaltending"  (Read 10533 times)

Offline J12

  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-4
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
"Goaltending"
« on: July 22, 2014, 04:30:12 PM »
        As I understand it, it's a foul for Unsportsmanlike Conduct to position a man under the goalpost and have him leap and deflect back a field goal attempt or conversion.

         But what exactly is the penalty for this? Does the field goal or conversion count as good and then a 15 yard penalty is assessed? Is it simply a 15 yard penalty and replay the down?

         Furthermore, under Federation rules, I would assume the "goaltended" ball is dead in the endzone. But in NCAA or NFL, is a "goaltended" ball still in play in the endzone. Could the kicking team then recover the ball in the endzone and get a touchdown.

Offline GA Umpire

  • *
  • Posts: 114
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-0
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #1 on: July 22, 2014, 05:35:43 PM »
I do not know where you heard this misinformation about it being Unsportsmanlike Conduct, but below is the approved ruling from the 2014 NFHS Casebook.



 6.3.1 SITUATION B:

During a field-goal attempt, R1, who is in the end zone, leaps up and blocks the ball away from the crossbar.

RULING: Touchback. The touching by R1 in the end zone causes the ball to become dead, unless the ball caroms through the goal, thus scoring a field goal. This is not illegal batting, as the touching caused the kick to fail. (4-2-2d(2); 6-3-1b)

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-12
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #2 on: July 23, 2014, 07:20:26 AM »
Might be illegal in the NFL.  Legal is HS for sure, as GA Ump noted.

Online Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-33
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #3 on: July 23, 2014, 07:53:59 AM »
In NCAA this is simply illegal batting, as it is illegal to bat loose balls (other than passes) in the end zone. The ball does remain live. If team A ends up with the ball, the penalty is from the previous spot (most likely declined by team A), otherwise it will be a safety after PSK enforcement.

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +324/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #4 on: July 23, 2014, 08:05:16 AM »
In NCAA this is simply illegal batting, as it is illegal to bat loose balls (other than passes) in the end zone.
Playing Devil's Advocate here since I can't get my arms around it. Maybe I haven't had enough morning coffee just yet.

By rule, is the ball in the end zone? In the OP, when the act occurs the ball has merely broken the plane of the goal line. Does that give it "end zone" status?
"Gentlemen, we are going to relentlessly chase perfection, knowing full well we will not catch it, because nothing is perfect. But we are going to relentlessly chase it, because in the process we will catch excellence. I am not remotely interested in just being good."
- Vince Lombardi

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2574
  • FAN REACTION: +317/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #5 on: July 23, 2014, 08:35:30 AM »
Playing Devil's Advocate here since I can't get my arms around it. Maybe I haven't had enough morning coffee just yet.

By rule, is the ball in the end zone? In the OP, when the act occurs the ball has merely broken the plane of the goal line. Does that give it "end zone" status?
Rule 8-5-3a-1 regarding TBs states :"Which IS NOT a scoring attempt...."; this keeps the ball alive until kick is no good. For those of you that are long of tooth (like me), you may remember 49ers R.C. Owens accomplishing this feat back in the 60's. I assume it's still legal in their code as on long FG attempts, there is often a R player under the pipes.

Offline Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 520
  • FAN REACTION: +40/-9
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #6 on: July 23, 2014, 08:44:26 AM »
Quote
By rule, is the ball in the end zone? In the OP, when the act occurs the ball has merely broken the plane of the goal line. Does that give it "end zone" status?

 The NCAA says yes, ARs 9-4-1-I through 9-4-1-V.

Online Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2716
  • FAN REACTION: +98/-33
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #7 on: July 23, 2014, 10:54:30 AM »
I assume it's still legal in their code as on long FG attempts, there is often a R player under the pipes.

I think he's there to potentially return the kick, if it is about to land in the end zone. Goaltending is illegal in NFL, too (although, if I read the (2010) rules correctly, otherwise batting a non-grounded ball in the end zone isn't).

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #8 on: July 23, 2014, 12:05:25 PM »
What rule makes this illegal in the NFL?

The Illegal batting rule reads as follows:

12-4-1:
Illegal Bat. It is an illegal bat if:
(a) a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball in the field of play toward his opponent’s goal line; or
(b) a player of either team bats or punches a loose ball (that has touched the ground) in any direction, if it is in either end zone; or
(c) an offensive player bats a backward pass in flight toward his opponent’s goal line.

A scrimmage kick headed between the uprights doesn't fit any of those categories.  Is it specifically listed somewhere else?

And yes, the player under the uprights in the NFL is there for returns, not the rare cases of a "goaltend".  Missed FGs are still live balls in NCAA and NFL (FED too if they don't cross the goal line).  Best way to remember it:

"A field goal is just a punt that can score."

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-12
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #9 on: July 23, 2014, 01:48:15 PM »
AB - granted, it's not the rulebook, but as of two years ago goaltending was illegal in the NFL.  See the last bullet point: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/14/nfl-details-key-officiating-issues-from-week-one/

EDIT: NFL rule 12-3 is "prohibited acts", including section R:

"(r) Goal-tending by a defensive player leaping up to deflect a kick as it passes above the crossbar of a goalpost. The referee may award three points for a palpably unfair act (12-3-3)."

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2013%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf
« Last Edit: July 23, 2014, 01:52:08 PM by VALJ »

Offline mbref

  • *
  • Posts: 3
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #10 on: July 23, 2014, 01:55:05 PM »
I have always had a problem with the ruling in the case book of touchback.  The result of the play is definitely a touchback.  However, it was an illegal bat that causes the kick to fail.  See rule 9-7-2  which clearly states this bat is not legal.
ART. 2 . . . No player shall bat a loose ball other than a pass or a fumble in flight, or a low scrimmage kick in flight which he is attempting to block in or behind the expanded neutral zone.
Rule 4-2-2 indicates this ball is dead when it touches an R player in the end zone unless it caroms through the upright.  If it is a bat these two rules are in conflict.  If this bat occurs on a low kick outside the endzone this would be a foul.

Offline Curious

  • *
  • Posts: 1219
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-44
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #11 on: July 23, 2014, 04:01:30 PM »
  If it is a bat these two rules are in conflict.  If this bat occurs on a low kick outside the endzone this would be a foul.

Welcome to FED rules.  Conflicting/contradicting interpretations abound!

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #12 on: July 23, 2014, 06:00:16 PM »
AB - granted, it's not the rulebook, but as of two years ago goaltending was illegal in the NFL.  See the last bullet point: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/09/14/nfl-details-key-officiating-issues-from-week-one/

EDIT: NFL rule 12-3 is "prohibited acts", including section R:

"(r) Goal-tending by a defensive player leaping up to deflect a kick as it passes above the crossbar of a goalpost. The referee may award three points for a palpably unfair act (12-3-3)."

http://static.nfl.com/static/content/public/image/rulebook/pdfs/2013%20-%20Rule%20Book.pdf

Thanks.  I was looking for it under "batting", but they don't call it batting, they call it a palpably unfair act.  OK.

Never had it on one of my games.

Offline VALJ

  • *
  • Posts: 2193
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-12
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #13 on: July 24, 2014, 07:04:08 AM »
Hey, if I hadn't googled it, I would have thought it was perfectly legal, too!

Offline Bwest

  • *
  • Posts: 235
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-3
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #14 on: July 24, 2014, 09:26:38 AM »
I have always had a problem with the ruling in the case book of touchback.  The result of the play is definitely a touchback.  However, it was an illegal bat that causes the kick to fail.  See rule 9-7-2  which clearly states this bat is not legal.
ART. 2 . . . No player shall bat a loose ball other than a pass or a fumble in flight, or a low scrimmage kick in flight which he is attempting to block in or behind the expanded neutral zone.
Rule 4-2-2 indicates this ball is dead when it touches an R player in the end zone unless it caroms through the upright.  If it is a bat these two rules are in conflict.  If this bat occurs on a low kick outside the endzone this would be a foul.

You can't illegally bat a dead ball. The ball is dead the second it is touched. Touching precedes batting.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #15 on: July 24, 2014, 10:01:52 AM »
Touching precedes batting.
I don't think there is any rule support for that.  Batting is the striking of the ball.  Striking IS touching.

Touching precedes POSSESION, but I don't see anything that says touching precedes batting.

Offline Bwest

  • *
  • Posts: 235
  • FAN REACTION: +12/-3
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #16 on: July 24, 2014, 12:31:11 PM »
I believe your support has to be derived from the case book ruling above.

Quote
6.3.1 SITUATION B:

During a field-goal attempt, R1, who is in the end zone, leaps up and blocks the ball away from the crossbar.

RULING: Touchback. The touching by R1 in the end zone causes the ball to become dead, unless the ball caroms through the goal, thus scoring a field goal. This is not illegal batting, as the touching caused the kick to fail. (4-2-2d(2); 6-3-1b)

Touching causes the kick to become dead, and you can't bat a dead ball.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #17 on: July 24, 2014, 12:42:34 PM »
I believe your support has to be derived from the case book ruling above.

Touching causes the kick to become dead, and you can't bat a dead ball.
You are correct, I think that supports your position.  But I think it is a convolution to get to the outcome they want.  The touching causes the ball to become dead, unless it doesn't (ball goes through the uprights).  They then say the touching caused the kick to fail, which is legal.

Why go through all of the convolution?  Why not just say it's legal to bat the ball in the end zone in an attempt to block the kick?

Offline bkdow

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
  • Striving for the impossible level of perfection
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #18 on: July 28, 2014, 11:56:18 AM »
In NFHS, doesn't the ball become "dead" when it is kicked and subsequently crosses the plane of the goaline?  So, if the attempt fell short of the goaline, it is treated like a punt and is returnable.  If it crosses the goaline, the only result can be a successful or unsuccessful field goal?
"Don't let perfection get in the way of really good." John Lucivansky

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #19 on: July 28, 2014, 12:36:01 PM »
In NFHS, doesn't the ball become "dead" when it is kicked and subsequently crosses the plane of the goaline? 

Unless it is a scoring attempt.

Quote
So, if the attempt fell short of the goaline, it is treated like a punt and is returnable.

Correct.  A FG is just a "punt that can score". 

Quote
If it crosses the goaline, the only result can be a successful or unsuccessful field goal?
So you are saying that the fact that it is unsuccessful makes it dead, not the touching?

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 410
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-27
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #20 on: July 29, 2014, 01:25:28 PM »
Why go through all of the convolution?  Why not just say it's legal to bat the ball in the end zone in an attempt to block the kick?

I agree, except for the situation where a ball has reached the endzone is batted back to the 2 yard line. This kick is still a 'scoring attempt', and the grounded kick is in the field of play now, wouldn't the ball now be live, able to be advanced by the receivers, or recovered by the kickers?

They should just say, 'It's legal to bat the ball in the end zone in an attempt to block the kick. The ball becomes dead when it is apparent that the kick will not score.'
« Last Edit: July 29, 2014, 02:00:05 PM by bbeagle »

Offline bkdow

  • *
  • Posts: 239
  • FAN REACTION: +9/-3
  • Striving for the impossible level of perfection
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #21 on: July 30, 2014, 12:03:18 PM »
It is a touchback if any free kick or scrimmage kick: (a) which is not a scoring attempt or which is a grounded three-point field-goal attempt, breaks the planof R's goal line, unless R chooses a spot of first touching by K. (b) Which is a three-point fieldgoal attmpt, in flight touches a K player inR's end zone, or after breaking the plan of R's goalline is unsuccessful."  Since we do not have a rule that says "goaltending" is illegal, then regardless of how it is unsuccessful after it breaks the plane, it is a touch back.  It would not matter where the ball comes to rest.
"Don't let perfection get in the way of really good." John Lucivansky

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3360
  • FAN REACTION: +257/-489
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #22 on: July 30, 2014, 06:36:58 PM »
Forgive me, but what is the problem with the current rule?  Any kick, with the lone exception of a scoring attempt, that is touched by a member of K, in the EZ and (somehow) caroms through the goal is dead, or a Touchback.

You could change the rule to suggest that any scoring attempt kick, that is touched by K, in the EZ, and caroms through the goal must be an act of divine intervention, and therefor is allowed, but that would likely cause some, very possibly the same few, to raise concerns on Constitutional grounds.

Offline Atlanta Blue

  • *
  • Posts: 3781
  • FAN REACTION: +160/-71
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #23 on: July 30, 2014, 07:56:07 PM »
Forgive me, but what is the problem with the current rule?  Any kick, with the lone exception of a scoring attempt, that is touched by a member of K, in the EZ and (somehow) caroms through the goal is dead, or a Touchback.

You could change the rule to suggest that any scoring attempt kick, that is touched by K, in the EZ, and caroms through the goal must be an act of divine intervention, and therefor is allowed, but that would likely cause some, very possibly the same few, to raise concerns on Constitutional grounds.
The issue is if it's touched by R, not K.  Can R jump up and block a FG attempt at the crossbar?

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2574
  • FAN REACTION: +317/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: "Goaltending"
« Reply #24 on: July 31, 2014, 07:09:18 AM »
Should we raise the crossbar to 12' to keep R players from reaching it ??? ????....Whoops, that would make it harder for the kicker pray:; :!# ::)... Should we make it illegal ??? ???? ....I've never seen any kid try it ::) ::) ( other than RC Owens when it was apparently legal in NFL)...Should the Red Sox trade away their starting rotation now that they have sold out for the rest of the home season :o :( ???....             things to ponder as I sip my lobster flavored coca. 8]