Author Topic: Kick Catch Interference  (Read 4838 times)

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • FAN REACTION: +44/-9
Kick Catch Interference
« on: July 30, 2017, 12:32:23 PM »
If K commits KCI, R can choose:

A) 15 yards from the previous spot
B) Awarded FC at the spot of the foul
C) Awarded FC after a 15 yard penalty

Why would R ever choose option B instead of C?

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 558
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #1 on: July 30, 2017, 01:09:04 PM »
In a game taking place in Unlikelysburg...

K is punting from the K2. K1 shanks the punt and R86 sees the ball and is position to catch the kick at the K10 but K56 blocks him prior to the ball landing (seeing as he wasn't expecting the ultra short shanked kick).

R realizes that this is extra point distance and elects not to move the ball to the 5. Without blockers in the way, K is also more likely to kick the ball lower since there isn't an obvious barrier in the way.

Maybe?

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 730
  • FAN REACTION: +44/-9
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #2 on: July 30, 2017, 02:37:20 PM »
Thanks NC. That's better than anything I could come up with.

Offline J12

  • *
  • Posts: 122
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-4
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #3 on: July 30, 2017, 02:49:26 PM »
If K commits KCI, R can choose:

A) 15 yards from the previous spot
B) Awarded FC at the spot of the foul
C) Awarded FC after a 15 yard penalty

Why would R ever choose option B instead of C?


Wasn't choice C added perhaps 10 years ago?  Weren't the only choice before that A & B?

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 584
  • FAN REACTION: +33/-42
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #4 on: July 30, 2017, 04:38:45 PM »
If K commits KCI, R can choose:

A) 15 yards from the previous spot
B) Awarded FC at the spot of the foul
C) Awarded FC after a 15 yard penalty

Why would R ever choose option B instead of C?

This would be an outstanding NFHS test question!  ncwingman's answer could be one of the choices in the multiple choice portion of the test. 

+1 to each of you!

Offline refjeff

  • *
  • Posts: 61
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-17
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #5 on: July 30, 2017, 06:11:33 PM »
In a game taking place in Unlikelysburg...

R realizes that this is extra point distance and elects not to move the ball to the 5. Without blockers in the way, K is also more likely to kick the ball lower since there isn't an obvious barrier in the way.  Maybe?   

Missing left or right is more of an issue than missing low.  Five yards closer the target is wider.  Almost every coach is going to move up.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1268
  • FAN REACTION: +64/-22
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #6 on: July 31, 2017, 08:05:00 AM »

Wasn't choice C added perhaps 10 years ago?  Weren't the only choice before that A & B?

It was less than 10... probably 4 or 5.  It doesn't make any sense why it's still in there when they made that change.

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3423
  • FAN REACTION: +259/-498
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #7 on: July 31, 2017, 08:39:58 AM »
It was less than 10... probably 4 or 5.  It doesn't make any sense why it's still in there when they made that change.

It seems adding "option C": (C) Awarded FC after a 15 yard penalty, was intended to add a PSK enforcement option, whereas prior, R's options were limited to ignoring the interference and accepting the FC at the spot, or giving K the option of replaying the down, neither of which seem like adequate motivation for K to avoid the risk of interference (except in unique situations).

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2660
  • FAN REACTION: +325/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #8 on: July 31, 2017, 12:17:11 PM »
Option C was added in 2013. Option A (previous spot enforcement) needed to stay, as on a booming kick, replaying the down + 15 may give R better possibilities for field position. I don't recall any discussion for keeping Option B, but there may have been one.

I have not mentioned Option B in giving enforcement options. Moving the potential free kick closer wouldn't bring R any closer as the 10 yard neutral zone would, even if it extended into the end zone, remain the same.

Offline Jackhammer

  • *
  • Posts: 246
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-5
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #9 on: July 31, 2017, 03:13:22 PM »
If K commits KCI, R can choose:

A) 15 yards from the previous spot
B) Awarded FC at the spot of the foul
C) Awarded FC after a 15 yard penalty

Why would R ever choose option B instead of C?

Some  :sTiR: ideas:
1) It is an interscholastic sport, one of our missions is to teach critical thinking to all these youngsters.
2) To more closely mirror wording on some of NFHS exam questions so that they mirror the rule book
3)  To prove Charles Dickens prophetic....the law is indeed sometimes an BUTT
4)  We forgot to remove it
"The only whistle that kills a play is an inadvertent one"

"The only thing black and white in officiating is the uniform"

Offline Ralph Damren

  • *
  • Posts: 2660
  • FAN REACTION: +325/-27
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #10 on: August 01, 2017, 10:07:40 AM »
Some  :sTiR: ideas:
1) It is an interscholastic sport, one of our missions is to teach critical thinking to all these youngsters.
2) To more closely mirror wording on some of NFHS exam questions so that they mirror the rule book
3)  To prove Charles Dickens prophetic....the law is indeed sometimes an BUTT
4)  We forgot to remove it
5) It falls into the same category as 3-4-4h...fire boxes on every street corner....a blacksmith shop for a shoeless horse....a rotary dial phone. The tangible items have disappeared, these rules have not.
 

Offline animalspooker

  • *
  • Posts: 15
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #11 on: August 02, 2017, 02:25:52 PM »
This would be an outstanding NFHS test question!  ncwingman's answer could be one of the choices in the multiple choice portion of the test. 

+1 to each of you!
I was thinking the same thing.  I didn't think you got 15 yards for an Awarded Fair Catch.

Offline Jackhammer

  • *
  • Posts: 246
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-5
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #12 on: August 03, 2017, 12:28:51 PM »
I was thinking the same thing.  I didn't think you got 15 yards for an Awarded Fair Catch.

Not sure what you mean...the offended team has one penalty option of 15 yards and an awarded fair catch.....they get this option because of the foul for kick catch interference.
"The only whistle that kills a play is an inadvertent one"

"The only thing black and white in officiating is the uniform"

Offline KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 341
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-39
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #13 on: August 03, 2017, 12:50:51 PM »
It seems adding "option C": (C) Awarded FC after a 15 yard penalty, was intended to add a PSK enforcement option, whereas prior, R's options were limited to ignoring the interference and accepting the FC at the spot, or giving K the option of replaying the down, neither of which seem like adequate motivation for K to avoid the risk of interference (except in unique situations).

Alf; Rulesman, I read your post several times and I'm not sure where you were going with this one? Or, did you just typo?
1- PSK is for R fouls ONLY! (2-16-2h)
2- Since KCI can ONLY be committed by K, KCI could NEVER be a PSK foul.
3- Because of  #1 and #2 it is not possible for K to be given the option of Replaying a down for a KCI foul.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2017, 08:40:09 PM by KWH »

Offline Rulesman

  • The Keeper of the Keys
  • Administrator
  • ***
  • Posts: 3839
  • FAN REACTION: +329/-243
  • Live like tomorrow never comes.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #14 on: August 03, 2017, 06:05:54 PM »
Rulesman, I read your post several times and I'm not sure where you were going with this one? Or, did you just typo?
1- PSK is for R fouls ONLY! (2-16-2h)
2- Since KCI can ONLY be committed by K, KCI could NEVER be a PSK foul.
3- Because of  #1 and #2 it is not possible for K to be given the option of Replaying a down for a KCI foul.
Thank you for thinking of me but that wasn't my post.
"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 KWH

  • *
  • Posts: 341
  • FAN REACTION: +79/-39
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #15 on: September 09, 2017, 08:44:04 PM »
Thank you for thinking of me but that wasn't my post.
My mistake, I made the correction to my post in BLUE above!

Offline fcardon99

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-2
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #16 on: September 11, 2017, 10:44:47 AM »
It is my understanding that the 3 choices for R are:

A) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down
B) Awarded FC after a 15 yard penalty
C) Take the result of the play.

You can have KCI and still have a return by R which could be more beneficial than a 15 yard penalty.

Offline bbeagle

  • *
  • Posts: 449
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-31
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #17 on: September 11, 2017, 01:08:43 PM »
It is my understanding that the 3 choices for R are:

A) 15 yards from the previous spot and replay the down
B) Awarded FC after a 15 yard penalty
C) Take the result of the play.

You can have KCI and still have a return by R which could be more beneficial than a 15 yard penalty.

Yes, but there's also...
D) Awarded FC (but decline the 15 yard distance part) penalty



Offline fcardon99

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-2
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #18 on: September 11, 2017, 01:59:36 PM »
Not anymore...

kick-catching interference (S33) R may accept the results of the play, an awarded fair catch after enforcement of a 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul, or a 15-yard penalty from the previous spot and a replay of the down;

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #19 on: September 11, 2017, 02:17:51 PM »
Not anymore...

kick-catching interference (S33) R may accept the results of the play, an awarded fair catch after enforcement of a 15-yard penalty from the spot of the foul, or a 15-yard penalty from the previous spot and a replay of the down;

10-1-1 says otherwise.

"The distance penalty for any foul may be declined."

Offline fcardon99

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-2
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #20 on: September 11, 2017, 02:23:02 PM »
This is true, but are you going to give that option on every foul?  "Do you want the 10 yards for holding or not take the yardage?"

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #21 on: September 11, 2017, 02:29:54 PM »
This is true, but are you going to give that option on every foul?  "Do you want the 10 yards for holding or not take the yardage?"

I was just agreeing with bbeagle that there is indeed 4 options available rather than just 3.

I wouldn't compare a KCI foul which involves a change of possession with fair catch options to a run-of-the-mill holding call. For KCI, yes I would provide this option. For holding on a running play, obviously not.

Offline fcardon99

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-2
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #22 on: September 11, 2017, 02:37:47 PM »
Using that logic, what are your options for a holding call on a running play?  According to the rule book:

PENALTY: Arts. 1a, 2, 3a, b, d Illegal use of hands or arms (S42) 10 yards; Art. 1b interlocked blocking (S44) 10 yards; Arts. 1c, 3c holding (S42) 10 yards.

You wouldn't give the option to decline the yardage, that would be ridiculous.  Why do it with KCI?

Offline VA Official

  • *
  • Posts: 196
  • FAN REACTION: +4/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #23 on: September 11, 2017, 02:46:09 PM »
Using that logic, what are your options for a holding call on a running play?  According to the rule book:

PENALTY: Arts. 1a, 2, 3a, b, d Illegal use of hands or arms (S42) 10 yards; Art. 1b interlocked blocking (S44) 10 yards; Arts. 1c, 3c holding (S42) 10 yards.

You wouldn't give the option to decline the yardage, that would be ridiculous.  Why do it with KCI?

KCI is an odd occurrence with "different" enforcement than usual penalties. Coaches know they always have the option to decline yardage for run-of-the-mill plays like holding on runs, but may not be familiar with their options on KCI fouls, such as taking the spot of the awarded FC in option D.

As I said before, the post wasn't about "providing options to coaches," just the fact that 4 options exist rather than 3.
« Last Edit: September 11, 2017, 02:53:30 PM by VA Official »

Offline fcardon99

  • *
  • Posts: 16
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-2
Re: Kick Catch Interference
« Reply #24 on: September 11, 2017, 02:52:43 PM »
I'm not trying to be difficult but do have something that references that?  My rule book gives 3 options.