Dead ball/live bal/dead ball....will it confuse?????

[Ralph Damren]

Last year a concern was : "You can't be a kicker until you kick the ball "

This year a concern may be : "You'll have a dead ball foul that won't occur until the ball becomes live "

Some may feel it is in conflict with Fundamental III 1 & 2 : "A game official's whistle seldom kills the ball.It is already dead by rule." & "No live-ball foul causes the ball to become dead."

Some may feel it is also in conflict with 2-16-2a : "Dead ball (foul) - a foul which occurs in the time interval after a down has ended and before the ball is next snapped or FREE KICKED."

Some may feel that it will be hard to shut the play down before contact occurs as the whistle can't sound until a kick is made.

Some may feel that this foul will usually occur during an onside kick attempt.

Some may feel that the "pig pile" associated with such may occur.

Some may feel that the ensuing re-kick , in this "safety first" era, is not the best way to go.

What do YOU feel

[jg-me]

One obvious solution - make K fouls eligible to be 'tacked on' and eliminate the majority of all rekicks.

[Ralph Damren]

One obvious solution - make K fouls eligible to be 'tacked on' and eliminate the majority of all rekicks.

101% in agreement. The "tack on" proposal was again on the docket and again failed with probably 40% support. I voted for it, but didn't offer verbal support as I was saving my yapping to push my pet proposal on 10-2-5. I'll be a yapper if this shows up again next year. 

[bama_stripes]

One obvious solution - make K fouls eligible to be 'tacked on' and eliminate the majority of all rekicks.

What he said.

Also, very few of the injuries on KO plays happen during an onside kick.  They're almost always on deep kicks when players are moving at full speed.

[Magician]

I agree that the most logical change would be to allow fouls by K on kicking plays to be enforced from the succeeding spot if R retains possession. It's not that difficult of an exception to handle.

But absent that I think it's picking nits to be concerned about the live ball/dead ball fundamentals in this case. The intent of this rule is to prevent a team from loading up one side of the field and rushing the opponent on an onside kick. If you want to prevent the mad rush, kill it as the kick is made and consider it a dead ball foul.

[Atlanta Blue]

By definition, it does violate the fundamental.  So get rid of or modify the fundamental.

I'm OK with the tack on exception.  We made an exception for PSK, this one isn't even that tough.

Other idea is to make it a live ball foul.  If it means rekicks, then rekick.  I still haven't seen any supported statistics that say there are more injuries on kickoffs than on other plays.  The vast majority of our kickoffs (>80%) are touchbacks anyway.  There is virtually no contact!

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, the "tack on" rule would also correct the following situation :
       K's ball 4th & 10 @ 50....
       K's punt high & short, hits and begins to roll @ R's 40
       While ball is rolling, K2 - Bubba - flattens B5 - weasel.
       Ball rolls dead @ R's 42.
       R wants field position and declines penalty on Bubba.
       Bubba is removed from game and asked to carry pi to 10,001 st decimal.

With " tack on " R could keep the ball & reap the penalty.

[Atlanta Blue]

IMHO, the "tack on" rule would also correct the following situation :
       K's ball 4th & 10 @ 50....
       K's punt high & short, hits and begins to roll @ R's 40
       While ball is rolling, K2 - Bubba - flattens B5 - weasel.
       Ball rolls dead @ R's 42.
       R wants field position and declines penalty on Bubba.
       Bubba is removed from game and asked to carry pi to 10,001 st decimal.

With " tack on " R could keep the ball & reap the penalty.

I understand tacking this on, but now you are creating an even different exception.  In the original, it would be an exception to allow fouls to be tacked on the end of a free kick.  Now you want to add them on to scrimmage kicks as well?  What about a scrimmage kick that hasn't crossed the LOS?

What you are doing here is basically saying that possession has changed once the kicking team kicks the ball.  We all know that by rule it hasn't, but you want to treat it as if it has.  The NCAA and NFL already do that, it's certainly not out of the question, but it's going to take some significant rule writing, including dealing with things like kicks that have not crossed the LOS, or even more of an issue, kicks that crossed the LOS and then come back behind it.

In the NCAA and NFL, once a scrimmage kick crosses the LOS, even if it comes back behind it, K cannot advance it.  In FED, they can.  So that needs to be accounted for as well if we go changing this rule.

Having seen the reluctance of the FED Rules Committee to make rules that complicate enforcement, I think we may be pushing the rock uphill on this one.

[Sumstine]

Sounds like the NCAA rule for tack-on with Free and Scrimmage kicks is the way to go.

[Atlanta Blue]

Sounds like the NCAA rule for tack-on with Free and Scrimmage kicks is the way to go.

And I'm fine with that idea, but it currently won't fit with FED rules.

A's ball, 4th and 6 from their own 20.  A punts, ball hits at the A30, and bounces behind the LOS.  A32 picks it up at the A15 and starts running.  While the ball is still loose, but after being grounded, A67 grabs and twists the facemask of B45.  A32 either a) reaches the A30, or b) is tackled at the A25.

NCAA rule will allow a tack on, as the ball was dead when A gained possession at the A15.  But since FED allows A to advance a scrimmage kick that is behind the LOS, how do you apply the tack on rule, particularly in situation a)?

We would have to change more than one rule in FED to make tack-ons possible, in addition to creating another enforcement exception.  I'm not saying I'm opposed, but it's not as easy as adopting the NCAA rule.

[VALJ]

It's not a live ball foul that makes the ball dead.  It's a dead ball foul that happens at the time of the snap that prevents the ball from becoming live.  It's a foul that occurs during action that looks like the ball is live.

We already have one of these.  Otherwise, snap infractions would be live ball fouls

[Atlanta Blue]

It's not a live ball foul that makes the ball dead.  It's a dead ball foul that happens at the time of the snap that prevents the ball from becoming live.  It's a foul that occurs during action that looks like the ball is live.

We already have one of these.  Otherwise, snap infractions would be live ball fouls

Snap infractions occur BEFORE the ball becomes live, and they are fouls even if there is no snap.  But the new kicking rule says its a foul to have less than 4 on a side of the kicker at the time of the kick.  If there's no kick, there's no foul.  So it's the kick that makes it a foul, and a kick is a LIVE BALL action.  So we now have a foul that causes a live ball to become dead.

[Bwest]

And I'm fine with that idea, but it currently won't fit with FED rules.

A's ball, 4th and 6 from their own 20.  A punts, ball hits at the A30, and bounces behind the LOS.  A32 picks it up at the A15 and starts running.  While the ball is still loose, but after being grounded, A67 grabs and twists the facemask of B45.  A32 either a) reaches the A30, or b) is tackled at the A25.

NCAA rule will allow a tack on, as the ball was dead when A gained possession at the A15.  But since FED allows A to advance a scrimmage kick that is behind the LOS, how do you apply the tack on rule, particularly in situation a)?

We would have to change more than one rule in FED to make tack-ons possible, in addition to creating another enforcement exception.  I'm not saying I'm opposed, but it's not as easy as adopting the NCAA rule.

There would be no tack on in situation a since B doesn't have the ball at the end of the down. Word it like the PSK rule, where you can only tack-on if "A would not be next to put the ball in play".

[VALJ]

AB - I meant to say that we can treat it "philosophically" like a snap infraction.  You're right, of course - the actual kick itself is what causes the ball to become live.

[AlUpstateNY]

Snap infractions occur BEFORE the ball becomes live, and they are fouls even if there is no snap.  But the new kicking rule says its a foul to have less than 4 on a side of the kicker at the time of the kick.  If there's no kick, there's no foul.  So it's the kick that makes it a foul, and a kick is a LIVE BALL action.  So we now have a foul that causes a live ball to become dead.

As the saying goes, there's an "exception" to EVERY rule", and it sounds like in this instance the Rule Makers decided this will be an exception.  Evidently, they decided that they don't want a "flawed" free kick to continue to be played, and the simple answer was, declare this type violation a dead ball foul, even though it actually happens after the ball has been kicked.

The key will be quick decisions and loud, and likely long, whistles.

[HLinNC]

So it's a CFK   (Concurrent Free Kick) foul?

[AlUpstateNY]

So it's a CFK   (Concurrent Free Kick) foul?

Sometimes, when a square peg is the right choice to fill a hole, that happens to be round. The best solution is to simply shave the peg so it fits snuggly and properly to best accomplish the objective, and declare it an "exception to the rule".

[Rulesman]

I thought the Fed didn't like "exceptions?" 

[ncwingman]

Some may feel it is also in conflict with 2-16-2a : "Dead ball (foul) - a foul which occurs in the time interval after a down has ended and before the ball is next snapped or FREE KICKED."

Here's my pot stirring -- why not amend 2-16-2a to state that the dead ball foul occurs "before the ball is put in play by a LEGAL snap or free kick"?

Therefore, an illegal free kick doesn't put the ball in play (still a dead ball foul) but the player is still a kicker when he illegally kicks the ball. This would also catch the snap infraction as an illegal snap, thus still a dead ball foul.

[AlUpstateNY]

I thought the Fed didn't like "exceptions?" 

The Fed, for the most part, doesn't like exceptions, but reality sggests there are exceptions to ALL rules, even those that strive for no exceptions.

[Rulesman]

Reality and Fed also suggests an oxymoron on occasion.

[AlUpstateNY]

Reality and Fed also suggests an oxymoron on occasion.

As you suggest, the wisdom of Mr. Lombardi's observation is that there is considerable benefit in pursuing perfection, even though we understand we'll never fully attain it.

[Ralph Damren]

I am confident that there will be proposals to amend this in some direction.

I am confident that your thoughts/suggestions will be with me when I make my annual pilgrimage - if I can remember how to hit the print button.

I am confident that this will not occur often - this past season we had one reported flag.

I am confident the snow will melt before Memorial Day - we got another 10" yesterday.

I am confident that the Red Sox will do better than last year.

Some notable rule changes of yesteryear ......
 1945 (the year of my birth): Permitted the use of a 3-inch dirt tee for free kicks. Penalty for discarding head protector is loss of 5 yards. A scrimmage kick touched beyond the line by R and recovered by K is first down for K.
 1946 : Legalized a pliable kicking tee. Offside for failure to have 7 players of the offense on the line. A backward pass or fumble out of bounds awarded to team in last possession.
 1947 : Introduction of the foul for an offensive lineman to draw the defense offside. When a drop kick is used as a return kick, a field goal may be scored.

I am confident that some of these changes brought with them heated debates once the pony express arrived with the new rule books. The telegraph lines probably began to burn....how does one say, "What a lousy rule" in Morse Code....

[prab]

....how does one say, "What a lousy rule" in Morse Code....

.-- .... .- -   .-   .-.. --- ..- ... -.--   .-. ..- .-.. .