Free kick question

[Txgarza]

Free kick muffed by B, it's rolling around and A kicks the ball. A recovers on the B 15, B never had possession. What's the call?

[Kalle]

Rekick -10 yards. No option to tack on, and if team B wants to decline the penalty it would be team A's ball at B-15.

[Joe Stack]

Let's discuss this. The penalty is 10 yards (basic spot) and a loss of down, if not in conflict with other rules. Then, there is an exception for a scrimmage kick, not in play here. The only potential conflict I can see by not having a loss of down is the fact that the basic spot on a kick play is the previous spot. But is that really a conflict?

To me, a conflict on this comes into play when it is Team B that commits the foul. There can never be a loss of down on a Team B foul. Right? I won't say always, but there could almost always be one on Team A, right?

[JasonTX]

Let's discuss this. The penalty is 10 yards (basic spot) and a loss of down, if not in conflict with other rules. Then, there is an exception for a scrimmage kick, not in play here. The only potential conflict I can see by not having a loss of down is the fact that the basic spot on a kick play is the previous spot. But is that really a conflict?

To me, a conflict on this comes into play when it is Team B that commits the foul. There can never be a loss of down on a Team B foul. Right? I won't say always, but there could almost always be one on Team A, right?

Loss of the right to repeat 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th down.  In this play it doesn't involve either of those since it's a free kick down.

[Legacy Zebra]

Loss of the right to repeat 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th down.  In this play it doesn't involve either of those since it's a free kick down.

I'm with you on this one, as far as interpretation goes. But as a devil's advocate, can you support that with a rule or AR? (Trust me, I've been trying to find one too.) I would never advocate marking off 10 from the previous spot and giving Team B the ball there, but by the strict letter of the law, that is what it would be. In practice, Kalle got it in the first reply. But in a strict reading of the rules, Team B's ball 1st and 10 from the previous spot.

[Kalle]

Loss of the right to repeat 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th down.  In this play it doesn't involve either of those since it's a free kick down.

Annoyingly the penalty statement seems to apply to all downs, including free kick downs. I think rule 2-7-3 should say "loss of the right to repeat a scrimmage down."

[bkdow]

I'm not in Texas but can I ask this?  Wouldn't the spot of the illegal kick also be a spot of first touching and they could decline the penalty and take the ball at the spot of the illegal kick?

[TxBJ]

B muffed the kick so A is free to recover. Therefore no illegal or first touching.

[TxBJ]

Actually, free kick so A was always eligible to recover.

[bkdow]

B muffed the kick so A is free to recover. Therefore no illegal or first touching.

Sorry, I missed that part

[Kalle]

Actually, free kick so A was always eligible to recover.

If it goes 10 yards, which the OP doesn't say

[Txgarza]

If it goes 10 yards, which the OP doesn't say

Since it was muffed then A would be eligible to recover even if it had not gone 10 yards.

[Joe Stack]

Loss of the right to repeat 1st, 2nd, 3rd, or 4th down.

But that isn't what the rule says.

Play: Overtime. Tie game. 4th and goal from the B ten. Team A throws an illegal forward pass from the 5 yard line, which is incomplete. Penalty is 5 yards AND loss of down -- had this been during the 1-4 quarters, we would do both. But OT rules are in conflict.

As I asked -- is there a REAL conflict, or just something that doesn't sound or feel right?

[Kalle]

Play: Overtime. Tie game. 4th and goal from the B ten. Team A throws an illegal forward pass from the 5 yard line, which is incomplete. Penalty is 5 yards AND loss of down -- had this been during the 1-4 quarters, we would do both. But OT rules are in conflict.

Umm, what rule says that team A gets to repeat the 4th down after the penalty? I find no such exception in either 3-1-3 or 7-3-2.

(Your example is bad, as if team A gets to repeat the 4th down, team B would obviously decline the penalty and get the ball as team A doesn't make the line to gain)

[Joe Stack]

I think I see what you're saying -- the conflict is with the 5 yard penalty and not the LOD provision. But let's say the illegal pass is complete and the result of the play is a TD -- Team B wouldn't decline the penalty at that point. They would get the LOD but not the 5 yard penalty, as they would put the ball into play at the 25 (or someone would, depending on the circumstances of the OT).

But my point is to illustrate an actual conflict in the rules. Maybe a better example is the play I had once: Team B player kicks the ball being held for a Team A field goal on a try. Someone recovers. Foul is illegally kicking ball and penalty includes a loss of down. But you can't have a LOD with a Team B foul. So there is an actual conflict. (Coach of Team B, incidentally, argued the enforcement is on the kickoff. I all but laughed.)

Back to the original play: IS there an actual conflict? Whether I have a good example for a play where there is isn't an issue. I was simply trying to demonstrate an actual conflict.

[Kalle]

I think I see what you're saying -- the conflict is with the 5 yard penalty and not the LOD provision. But let's say the illegal pass is complete and the result of the play is a TD -- Team B wouldn't decline the penalty at that point. They would get the LOD but not the 5 yard penalty, as they would put the ball into play at the 25 (or someone would, depending on the circumstances of the OT).

There is no conflict. What happens is that you have an enforcement spot for a live ball foul, then you enforce the distance penalty to get to some other succeeding spot. Now you enforce the LOD aspect and end up giving the ball over to team B. Team B then "magically" gains dozens of yards (if the next series belongs to them) to get to A-25 where they will actually snap the ball. This is just the same if on the 4th down run play team A fails to make the LTG.

But my point is to illustrate an actual conflict in the rules. Maybe a better example is the play I had once: Team B player kicks the ball being held for a Team A field goal on a try. Someone recovers. Foul is illegally kicking ball and penalty includes a loss of down. But you can't have a LOD with a Team B foul. So there is an actual conflict. (Coach of Team B, incidentally, argued the enforcement is on the kickoff. I all but laughed.)

The rule says: "PENALTY—10 yards, plus loss of down for fouls by Team A"; so no conflict when the foul is by team B. No LOD, penalize 10 yards, repeat the try.

Back to the original play: IS there an actual conflict? Whether I have a good example for a play where there is isn't an issue. I was simply trying to demonstrate an actual conflict.

I'm in the camp that in the OP there is no conflict and by the literal rule the ball would belong to team B. That is obviously not what the rules makers want.

[Bwest]

Free kick muffed by B, it's rolling around and A kicks the ball. A recovers on the B 15, B never had possession. What's the call?

You guys are overthinking this. We will move the free kick restraining line back ten yards and re-kick.

9-4-4 (10 yard penalty and loss of down if not in conflict with other rules)
6-1-8  (Penalties for all fouls by the kicking team other than KCI during a free kick play may be enforced at the previous spot with the down repeated)

The rules conflict, but the LOD in 9-4-4 only applies if there is no conflict. Since there is a conflict, it does not apply.

[Kalle]

6-1-8  (Penalties for all fouls by the kicking team other than KCI during a free kick play may be enforced at the previous spot with the down repeated)

Thank you! This solves the problem.