Kickoff

[yarnnelg]

Kickoff, ball touched by R at the 10, ball travels through to the endzone. No possession, no detectable altering the flight. Touchback?

[ElvisLives]

The impetus on the ball that put it beyond B’s goal line where the ball became dead (behind the goal line) is with the kick from Team A. That’s a touchback. The fact that the ball was touched (muffed) by Team B does not change the impetus. It does mean the game clock should be started (upon signal by the covering officials).

[yarnnelg]

That's what I thought. Missed that on a test once. Look at the Ole Miss/Auburn  game. Ole Miss burning down Officials houses right now. About 3 minutes left in the forth quarter.

[ump_ben]

Not sure it was technically reviewable though.  There's no immediate recovery language for a muffed ball becoming dead in the endzone.  The spirit of the rule suggests the same standard should apply but the officials killed it just before Ole Miss would have scored.

[Sonofanump]

Kickoff, ball touched by R at the 10, ball travels through to the endzone. No possession, no detectable altering the flight. Touchback?

Just saw this play after reading this thread earlier.  The ball did not travel through the endzone.  It became dead due to signal in the endzone.  If it was touched by the return team, the ball is still live after touching the ground in the endzone.  I believe that a muff provides the immediate recovery after whistle for replay.

[dammitbobby]

Haven’t seen the play but from what was described they got it right, I think. The ball becomes dead as soon as it’s in the end zone as long as the kicking team is the one who last placed the force on the ball.

8-6-1-b
b. A kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there (Exception: Rule 8-4-2-b) (A.R. 6-3-4-III).

8-7-2-a
Initial Impetus
ARTICLE 2. a. The impetus imparted by a player who kicks, passes, snaps or fumbles the ball shall be considered responsible for the ball’s progress in any direction even though its course is deflected or reversed after striking the ground or after touching an official or a player of either team (A.R. 6-3-4-III; A.R. 8-5-1-II, VI and VIII; and A.R. 8-7-2-I-IV).

[Kalle]

Haven’t seen the play but from what was described they got it right, I think. The ball becomes dead as soon as it’s in the end zone as long as the kicking team is the one who last placed the force on the ball.

Do you think rule 6-1-7-a applies?

"When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B."

[CalhounLJ]

 Y’all help a brother out. I’m not a college rule student so I have a couple of questions.

#1. What exactly is the rule concerning a grounded free kick touched by R and recovered by K in the end zone? 

#2. Is the play reviewable? 

[wv ref]

Referee magazine covered this....check out play 2.
Impetus would be responsible the ball being there if B recovered making it a Touchback, but 6-1-7a says explicitly its only dead upon touching the EZ when untouched by B (4-1-3-c)


https://www.referee.com/free-but-not-easy/

[CalhounLJ]

That's what I thought. Missed that on a test once. Look at the Ole Miss/Auburn  game. Ole Miss burning down Officials houses right now. About 3 minutes left in the forth quarter.

So then Ole Miss has a right to be upset?

[CalhounLJ]

Another question. Is this something basic enough that every college official should know? On the high school side I think knowing a kick is dead as soon as it crosses the goal line regardless of being touched or not and becomes a touchback. Is the college rule not that clear?

[Snapper]

Another question. Is this something basic enough that every college official should know? On the high school side I think knowing a kick is dead as soon as it crosses the goal line regardless of being touched or not and becomes a touchback. Is the college rule not that clear?

The rule is clear.  Every official knows it.

What is not clear is whether the B receiver touched the ball.  It's that close.  Watching blown up replays on the internet, I think that the ball grazed his pinky.  I mean, it's that close.  The path of the ball isn't altered appreciably.  It's an extremely difficult call for the onfield officials at game speed.

[Kalle]

What is not clear is whether the B receiver touched the ball.  It's that close.  Watching blown up replays on the internet, I think that the ball grazed his pinky.  I mean, it's that close.  The path of the ball isn't altered appreciably.  It's an extremely difficult call for the onfield officials at game speed.

Now I'm intrigued. Based on the OP I assumed that the the ball went out of bounds beyond the team B end line, so it shouldn't matter if a team B player touched it or not - it is a touchback. Was the ruling on the field something else, or did the ball not go OOB in the EZ?

Edit: OK, found the play. So it did not go OOB but team A apparently recovered in the team B EZ. Then yes, it comes down to if a team B player touched it or not, and if nobody saw any touching. it is a TB. As to if it is reviewable, I think it is, both as it concerns a potential score and touching of a kick.

[yarnnelg]

"ball travels through to the endzone"

I misspoke although the intent was correct. The ball traveled threw the field of play into the end zone ....

Regardless, the rule was applied correctly. when it entered the end zone the play was over. It doesn't matter whether or not there was an unseen touch or not ....the flight of the ball into the end zone was the original force of the kick.

I remembered this from a test back in the day that the Florida test was 100 questions. I went to great pains to write this answer down and searched for it on my own. I was lazy and did not pull my test file to find the answer.  That was a test score of 99 and the wrong question was one I beat myself over on.....

Go back and re-read the Elvis post ...."TOUCHING DOES NOT MATTER" The moment it crosses the goal line ...touchback.

[Snapper]

"ball travels through to the endzone"

I misspoke although the intent was correct. The ball traveled threw the field of play into the end zone ....

Regardless, the rule was applied correctly. when it entered the end zone the play was over. It doesn't matter whether or not there was an unseen touch or not ....the flight of the ball into the end zone was the original force of the kick.

I remembered this from a test back in the day that the Florida test was 100 questions. I went to great pains to write this answer down and searched for it on my own. I was lazy and did not pull my test file to find the answer.  That was a test score of 99 and the wrong question was one I beat myself over on.....

Go back and re-read the Elvis post ...."TOUCHING DOES NOT MATTER" The moment it crosses the goal line ...touchback.

No, that's just not right.  Not in NCAA.

The moment a kick crosses the goal line does NOT create a touchback.

[dammitbobby]

What’s your rule for that? Because as I read 8-6-1-b, it is a dead ball as soon as it crosses as long as it still has kicking team force.

[dammitbobby]

Do you think rule 6-1-7-a applies?

"When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B."

Not in this situation because OP said it was touched/muffed by B.

[yarnnelg]

Where this came from.

Auburn/Ole Miss late fourth quarter. Free kick by Ole Miss, ball hits about 15 yards from the endzone headed toward the endzone. Auburn return man stops, and makes a half hearted attempt to field the ball. The ball passes between his hands with no visible indication on camera whether or not he touches the ball. The ball goes into the endzone, #8 turns to pursue but stops when the officials close in signaling touchback. Immediately the announcers start claiming the ball was touched. I'll bet the angles have been played 20 times now. The replay booth in the stadium doesn't call to review more closely and the replay by committee at SEC Headquarters fails to call for a review. The announcers caused the greater amount of questioning the call. The public pounced on the announcers as if they are the experts.

[Snapper]

What’s your rule for that? Because as I read 8-6-1-b, it is a dead ball as soon as it crosses as long as it still has kicking team force.

Sure.  Let me try to explain my reasoning.

I can see where if you read the rule a certain way, it can appear to be the way you say.  After all, except for the rules committee themselves, I don't think anyone would claim that the rulebook is always written clearly.


Here's the first part of the Touchback rule.  Including the rule you mentioned, 8-6-1-b :

SECTION 6. Touchback

When Declared

ARTICLE 1. It is a touchback when:
a. The ball becomes dead out of bounds behind a goal line, except from an
incomplete forward pass, or becomes dead in the possession of a player on,
above or behind his own goal line and the attacking team is responsible for
the ball being there (Rules 7-2-4-c) (A.R. 7-2-4-I, A.R. 8-6-1-I-III).
b. A kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and
the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there (Exception: Rule
8-4-2-b) (A.R. 6-3-4-III).


You can't read 8-6-1-b in isolation, all by itself.  That can throw you off.  You have to include the words that start Article 1:  "It is a touchback when".  After reading that, the rule then goes on to list 2 instances when a tourchback occurs.  So piecing this together, it reads "It is a touchback when (b) A kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there (Exception: Rule 8-4-2-b) (A.R. 6-3-4-III)"

Let's leave the exception out, that is referring to unsuccessful field goals.  And the AR talks about forced touching, so let's ignore that as well.

So the rule boils down to "It is a touchback when a kick becomes dead by rule behind the defending team’s goal line and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there."

So it is listing one of the instances of a touchback.  But this particular rule does NOT tell us when a kick becomes dead by rule.  That is covered in other rules.

Paraphrasing, the rule is basically saying:  "If a kick becomes dead behind the defending team's goal line, and the attacking team is responsible for the ball being there, then it's a touchback."

But the rule is NOT telling us that the kick automatically becomes dead just because it's in the endzone.  Other rules cover when the ball (or kick) becomes dead.



I hope that helps.

[dammitbobby]

yes it does - I'll dig into the rules regarding when it becomes dead in the EZ later tonight.  I do understand your reasoning though.

[ElvisLives]

Go back and re-read the Elvis post ...."TOUCHING DOES NOT MATTER" The moment it crosses the goal line ...touchback.

Not at all what I said.
The situation you originally posed had the legally kicked ball being touched by B and then going out of bounds behind B’s goal line, and my reply was based on those circumstances. My reply dealt only with impetus, since the situation included the ball being touched by Team B before it touched the ground on/beyond B’s goal line. The touching didn’t change impetus, but it did cause the clock to start, and meant that ball would remain alive and in play if it touched the ground in the end zone.
For NCAA football, a legally kicked ball does NOT - repeat - does NOT - become dead simply by breaking the plane of B’s goal line. If it is untouched by B, and touches the ground in B’s end zone - yes - that’s an immediate touchback. If B touches it before it touches the ground on/behind B’s goal line, the ball remains alive and in play. The simple touching does not change impetus. So, if a legally kicked ball, touched by Team B, travels out of bounds behind B’s goal line, Team A is responsible for the ball being dead behind B’s goal line, and that’s a touchback.

[Sonofanump]

The ball goes into the endzone

We (as a whole) need to be careful how we describe a play because this changes everything.

[CalhounLJ]

Where this came from.

Auburn/Ole Miss late fourth quarter. Free kick by Ole Miss, ball hits about 15 yards from the endzone headed toward the endzone. Auburn return man stops, and makes a half hearted attempt to field the ball. The ball passes between his hands with no visible indication on camera whether or not he touches the ball. The ball goes into the endzone, #8 turns to pursue but stops when the officials close in signaling touchback. Immediately the announcers start claiming the ball was touched. I'll bet the angles have been played 20 times now. The replay booth in the stadium doesn't call to review more closely and the replay by committee at SEC Headquarters fails to call for a review. The announcers caused the greater amount of questioning the call. The public pounced on the announcers as if they are the experts.

This is not completely correct. First, when the ball entered the end zone, an Ole Miss player instantly fell on it and recovered it. Second, replay clearly shows a touch by B. While the ball does not change trajectory, the pinky finger does bend back significantly in such a manner that is not normal and can be only explained as being impacted by the ball. There have been calls overturned with way less evidence than I saw. Just because it’s posted on h internet or twitter doesn’t make it suspect. 

[CalhounLJ]

https://cdn.vox-cdn.com/thumbor/PNAGEbJqLUZ5QmZT5HB525he_zc=/1600x0/filters:no_upscale()/cdn.vox-cdn.com/uploads/chorus_asset/file/21986515/ezgif_6_7d7c389a640a.gif

[dammitbobby]

So here's the relevant rules, as I see them:

The outcome if B did not touch the ball (doesn't seem to be any disagreement on this one):

Ball Dead in End Zone (6-1-7-a)
ARTICLE 7. a. When a free kick untouched by Team B touches the ground on or behind Team B’s goal line, the ball becomes dead and belongs to Team B.

If there was no touching, that would be the rationale that the ball is dead and belongs to B.

But if B did touch it, but did not posess it, it is a muff:  2-11-2
ARTICLE 2. To muff the ball is to touch the ball in an unsuccessful attempt to catch or recover it. Muffing the ball does not change its status.

6-1-3-a

ARTICLE 3. a. No Team A player may touch a free-kicked ball until after:
1. It touches a Team B player (Exception: Rules 6-1-4 and 6-5-1-b);  criteria met:  yes
2. It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s restraining line  criteria met:  yes  (Exception: Rule 6-4-1 (interference with Opportunity, not relevant) (A.R. 2-12-5-I (breaking the plane of the restraining line, not relevant); or
3. It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything else beyond Team B’s restraining line. criteria met: yes
Thereafter, all players of Team A become eligible to touch, recover or catch the kick.

Based on the (supposed) touch(muff) by B, this establishes that A players have a right to the ball.  (only one of the criteria must be met)

Once B touches it, the clock should stat (on an official's signal): (3-3-2-a)

Starting and Stopping the Clock
ARTICLE 2. a. Free Kick. After the ball is free-kicked, the game clock shall be started on an official’s signal when the ball is legally touched in the field of play, or when it crosses the goal line after being touched legally by Team B in its end zone. It is subsequently stopped on an official’s signal when the ball is dead by rule. (A. R. 3-3-2-VII)

So we have kick -> touch by B -> clock starts which means the ball is live until possessed by A or B, and dead by rule (player down, through/out the endzone, etc)

note:  I have not seen the entirety of the play (just Calhoun's gif, which sure looked like a touch to me.)  So, based on the description of the series of events here, and what I see in the rules, A should have had an opportunity to recover, since it was a live ball, even in (but not out of) the end zone.  But, if there was no touching, it's a moot point.  This isn't intended to be criticism of the officials on the field AT ALL.  Their job is incredibly difficult and tbh i'll probably never be good enough to be a college-level official, at any level.( I WANT to be that good, but let's not kid ourselves, I'm also a realist here)  I'm just trying to get better at learning the rules, and walking through a scenario like this is immensely helpful for me. 

So, to that end, please let me know what errors I have made in arriving at the conclusion I did (I'm sure there are some), and if I missed any relevant rules.