Kicking Play

[BlindZebra]

A 4/Goal B-8.  A's FG attempt is blocked behind the line of scrimmage but bounces to the B-6 where it amazingly reverses direction and bounces back to the B-13.  At the B-13 player B13 muffs the loose ball and it bounces into B's EZ where A13 recovers the ball.

Ruling?

[Legacy Zebra]

Once the ball touches the ground at the B-6, the kick has crossed the neutral zone. Everything that occurs now occurs with the ball "beyond" the neutral zone. This is because the neutral zone disintegrates when a kick crosses it, so there is no longer a neutral zone for the ball to go back behind. When B13 muffs the ball, Team A can legally recover the ball. It also means that the kick hitting the ground in the end zone is no longer dead immediately. So we have Team A legally recovering a loose ball in Team B's end zone. That's a touchdown.

[Kalle]

I seem to remember that this has been discussed before, and also have a vague recollection that the rule would have been different. But spot-checking back to 2000 I didn't find any change in the language of the rules 6-3-2 and 6-3-3 related to this.

[BlindZebra]

Once the ball touches the ground at the B-6, the kick has crossed the neutral zone. Everything that occurs now occurs with the ball "beyond" the neutral zone. This is because the neutral zone disintegrates when a kick crosses it, so there is no longer a neutral zone for the ball to go back behind. When B13 muffs the ball, Team A can legally recover the ball. It also means that the kick hitting the ground in the end zone is no longer dead immediately. So we have Team A legally recovering a loose ball in Team B's end zone. That's a touchdown.

Can you provide your rule references please? I forgot to put that up in the original post.

And anyone else that wants to chime in, please provide your rule references.

[sj_31]

5-1-4-a
5-1-1-e-2
6-3-3 (notice the rule says "has crossed" not "is across"...). Exception is "forced touching is no touching 6-3-4 and rules relating to a fair catch, 6-5-1-b.
6-3-6 This gives the kicking team legal possession of the ball based on above-mentioned rules.

I agree with the previous posts that "once across, always across" relative to scrimmage kicks crossing the neutral zone based on the rules above, and therefore the above rulings are correct.

However, to open another can of worms on a semi-related subject, the rulebook contradicts itself on relating to "once across, always across." See AR 6-3-13-III. Don't let this AR muddy the above rules/rulings. Those are correct.

[Kalle]

However, to open another can of worms on a semi-related subject, the rulebook contradicts itself on relating to "once across, always across." See AR 6-3-13-III. Don't let this AR muddy the above rules/rulings. Those are correct.

Mmm, how does it contradict that? It states that if the kick crosses the neutral zone and then returns back behind the NZ and goes out of bound there, team B may still enforce team A fouls from the dead ball spot. This is entirely according to the "once across, always across" principle.

[Bwest]

I agree that this ruling is likely the intent, but I think there is some language to clean up in 6-3-9.

"If a scrimmage kick untouched by Team B beyond the neutral
zone touches the ground on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes
dead and belongs to Team B."

That implies that the ball is dead in the end zone unless the ball is across the neutral zone when touched by B, which would not match any other scrimmage kick rule.

[sj_31]

@Kalle

I'm not saying it's wrong, my point is that how can something (the ball) go back behind a line that no longer exists? In other words, if the continuity of downs is broken once the ball crossed the NZ and therefore the NZ is gone, then how can we still use it as a point of reference relative to the wording in 6-3-13 (and only in reference to that particular rule)?

It's not consistent with the wording relative to the neutral zone and scrimmage kicks in other parts of the rulebook. As long as we know this then we won't enforce something incorrectly, it just annoys me.

[bossman72]

I agree that this ruling is likely the intent, but I think there is some language to clean up in 6-3-9.

"If a scrimmage kick untouched by Team B beyond the neutral
zone touches the ground on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes
dead and belongs to Team B."

That implies that the ball is dead in the end zone unless the ball is across the neutral zone when touched by B, which would not match any other scrimmage kick rule.

I agree the language is misleading.  I agree with LegacyZebra's interpretation.  Makes it consistent with other "kick crosses the NZ" plays.  Why would they make this play a Touchback if A is legally allowed to recover for a touchdown?

[Kalle]

I think it is just convenient language and it is used in several A.R.'s (eg. all in 6-3-1). It would be much more difficult to say something like "rebounds back behind the yard line where the neutral zone was before it disintegrated."

[ElvisLives]

I think it is just convenient language and it is used in several A.R.'s (eg. all in 6-3-1). It would be much more difficult to say something like "rebounds back behind the yard line where the neutral zone was before it disintegrated."

I'm with Kalle, here.  The neutral doesn't "disintegrate."  It may not have has much impact on the down as before the scrimmage kick officially crossed it, but it still exists.  We just simply have to know the rules relating to kicks as they relate to the neutral zone.

Robert

[ChicagoZebra]

Once the ball touches the ground at the B-6, the kick has crossed the neutral zone. Everything that occurs now occurs with the ball "beyond" the neutral zone. This is because the neutral zone disintegrates when a kick crosses it, so there is no longer a neutral zone for the ball to go back behind. When B13 muffs the ball, Team A can legally recover the ball. It also means that the kick hitting the ground in the end zone is no longer dead immediately. So we have Team A legally recovering a loose ball in Team B's end zone. That's a touchdown.

To go one step further, this also means the unsuccessful field goal rules in rule 8 (i.e. the next snap will be B 1/10 at the B-20) do not apply, as that is only for kicks that are untouched by B beyond the neutral zone. Even though the touching by B happens behind the neutral zone in reality on this play, we consider the touching to be beyond per your clarification.

[Legacy Zebra]

Robert, the neutral zone does not exist once the kick crosses. 2-17-1-c: “The neutral zone exists...until a scrimmage kick crosses the neutral zone...”

[James]

Robert, the neutral zone does not exist once the kick crosses. 2-17-1-c: “The neutral zone exists...until a scrimmage kick crosses the neutral zone...”

Sorry - I seem a little muddy headed today.
Does this mean it (on an somewhat simpler unsuccessful attempt) was not touched 'beyond' the neutral zone and would go back to the 20 as an standard unsuccessful FG attempt, or do we go to the DB spot because it was touched 'beyond' the NZ?

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk

[ElvisLives]

Robert, the neutral zone does not exist once the kick crosses. 2-17-1-c: “The neutral zone exists...until a scrimmage kick crosses the neutral zone...”

Well, there you go.  I stand corrected.
Robert

[Kalle]

Actually, rule 6-3 should be rewritten with the same language change as was done last year in rule 8-4-2-b-a. There it now says "untouched by Team B after crossing the neutral zone", whereas before it was "untouched by Team B beyond the neutral zone". Much clearer now than before.

[ChicagoZebra]

Actually, rule 6-3 should be rewritten with the same language change as was done last year in rule 8-4-2-b-a. There it now says "untouched by Team B after crossing the neutral zone", whereas before it was "untouched by Team B beyond the neutral zone". Much clearer now than before.

I didn't know that they changed rule 8 in that way. That would very much clarify this whole discussion. They should definitely extend the editorial change here to all of rule 6-3.

[Magician]

I didn't know that they changed rule 8 in that way. That would very much clarify this whole discussion. They should definitely extend the editorial change here to all of rule 6-3.

I agree this would be an easy clarification. No matter how you interpret this you are not being consistent. If I'm going to be inconsistent I choose to use the one supported by rule. Until the rule is clarified to state the touching can take place after the ball crosses the neutral zone (regardless of where I touched), I'm going with the inconsistent interpretation that is supported by rule. I rule safety.