Illegal Kicks

[sczeebra]

While these are plays that may never be seen with human eyes I’m just trying to codify the penalty enforcement within the rules.
Both scenarios happen during a forward pass;
#1 An A player illegally kicks the pass away from B.
#2 A B player illegally kicks the pass away from A.
If this is listed as a spot foul then what do we do with these. I guess I’m asking where is the exception or override in the rulebook. Or maybe we need to go back to rule 9-7-3 and add (or kicked) along with batted.

[ncwingman]

Considering the unlikelyhood of this situation -- you're suggesting that while a legal forward pass is in flight, with an eligible receiver in position to potentially catch the pass, a member of the other team intentionally kicks the pass in flight?

In that situation, I might call this pass interference, and enforce it as such rather than invoking the spot foul provision of an "illegal kick".

As reference, more common acts that count as pass interference could be classified as holding, but you don't call it holding because the action was there to interfere with the pass reception. Alternatively, if a player threw a piece of equipment to deflect the ball in fight, that would probably be unsportsmanlike but I'd also argue that it could be pass interference.

[VALJ]

While these are plays that may never be seen with human eyes I’m just trying to codify the penalty enforcement within the rules.
Both scenarios happen during a forward pass;
#1 An A player illegally kicks the pass away from B.
#2 A B player illegally kicks the pass away from A.
If this is listed as a spot foul then what do we do with these. I guess I’m asking where is the exception or override in the rulebook. Or maybe we need to go back to rule 9-7-3 and add (or kicked) along with batted.

The foul occurs during a loose ball play, and the basic spot for a loose ball play is the previous spot.  10-4-4a only applies when a foul occurs behind the end of a run.

[VALJ]

Considering the unlikelyhood of this situation -- you're suggesting that while a legal forward pass is in flight, with an eligible receiver in position to potentially catch the pass, a member of the other team intentionally kicks the pass in flight?

In that situation, I might call this pass interference, and enforce it as such rather than invoking the spot foul provision of an "illegal kick".

As reference, more common acts that count as pass interference could be classified as holding, but you don't call it holding because the action was there to interfere with the pass reception. Alternatively, if a player threw a piece of equipment to deflect the ball in fight, that would probably be unsportsmanlike but I'd also argue that it could be pass interference.

Pass interference requires contact with a person, does it not?  An illegal kick during a forward pass is a garden variety loose ball foul.


In the instance of a player throwing a piece of equipment to deflect a ball in flight, I’d argue a unfair act under 9-9-1 and/or 9-9-5.

[ncwingman]

The foul occurs during a loose ball play, and the basic spot for a loose ball play is the previous spot.

Is it though? It used to be, but now 10-4-2b only defines fouls behind the line of scrimmage during loose ball plays. There's no actual definition of the basic spot for fouls during a loose ball play that are beyond the line of scrimmage.

10-4-4a only applies when a foul occurs behind the end of a run.

Where do you see that?

Please understand that I don't think you're wrong about these things, or that we should be doing things differently, just that the Editorial Committee's butchering of 10-4 is the gift that keeps on giving.

Pass interference requires contact with a person, does it not? 

7-5-10: It is forward-pass interference if any player of A or B who is beyond the neutral zone interferes with an eligible opponent's opportunity to move toward, catch or bat the pass.

If a player illegally contacts the ball, I would argue that would illegally interfere with the eligible receiver's ability to catch the pass. Contact with the receiver is not required if some other act illegally interferes with the opportunity. If you're going to God Rule it, you can assign any equitable penalty, and I would argue that would be the same as pass interference anyway.

[VALJ]

The foul occurs during a loose ball play, and the basic spot for a loose ball play is the previous spot.  10-4-4a only applies when a foul occurs behind the end of a run.

Where do you see that?

Literally the actual rule 10-4-4a itself:

“The basic spot is the spot of the foul for: a. Illegal batting or illegal kicking when the foul occurs behind the end of the run or related run;”

[VALJ]

If a player illegally contacts the ball, I would argue that would illegally interfere with the eligible receiver's ability to catch the pass. Contact with the receiver is not required if some other act illegally interferes with the opportunity. If you're going to God Rule it, you can assign any equitable penalty, and I would argue that would be the same as pass interference anyway.

Not necessarily.  If the forward pass it a two yard out pattern and the receiver is moving so he's going out of bounds, you could easily argue that they should only get the 2 yards they would have gotten anyway.  Likewise, if the receiver is all alone ten yards past the defense and is clearly gone, shouldn't they get a touchdown?

[ncwingman]

Literally the actual rule 10-4-4a itself:

“The basic spot is the spot of the foul for: a. Illegal batting or illegal kicking when the foul occurs behind the end of the run or related run;”

You're looking at an old rule book. Check out the 2025 version.

Not necessarily.  If the forward pass it a two yard out pattern and the receiver is moving so he's going out of bounds, you could easily argue that they should only get the 2 yards they would have gotten anyway.  Likewise, if the receiver is all alone ten yards past the defense and is clearly gone, shouldn't they get a touchdown?

If a player throws a shoe to deflect a pass in flight, and you asked a random fan what foul it was, what do you think he'd say? If you're going to invoke the God Rule, you should be reasonable and rational in the penalties. If it's pass interference adjacent, I'd award the pass interference penalty.

However, I'd still also call it unsportsmanlike before invoking 9-9-1. 9-5-1d specifically calls out kicking at the ball other than in a legal kick, which is a 15 yard penalty with no 10-4-4a complications.

[VALJ]

You're looking at an old rule book. Check out the 2025 version.

OK, that’s fair.  I haven’t been able to get my hands on this year’s yet.

[quote author=ncwingman link=topic=17368.msg175236#msg175236 date=1751458959

If a player throws a shoe to deflect a pass in flight, and you asked a random fan what foul it was, what do you think he'd say? If you're going to invoke the God Rule, you should be reasonable and rational in the penalties. If it's pass interference adjacent, I'd award the pass interference penalty.

However, I'd still also call it unsportsmanlike before invoking 9-9-1. 9-5-1d specifically calls out kicking at the ball other than in a legal kick, which is a 15 yard penalty with no 10-4-4a complications.

Guess we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one.  Though in 9-9-1 prevents us from counting this as an unsportsmanlike act, as I certainly feel that would be equitable.

On a pass play, I’d absolutely agree with you.