Author Topic: Not sure why I keep concerning myself, but… (Read 3072 times)

ElvisLives · « **on:** April 19, 2026, 07:14:51 PM »

The likelihood of ever seeing one is infinitesimal, but, we’ll still be expected to know everything about a Fair Catch Kick. I heard from an unofficial, but reliable, source that the game clock will start on the kick for a Fair Catch Kick. That makes total sense, if everything (well, most everything) after the kick is to be treated like a scrimmage kick.
So, if that is the case, then having an onside kick would be non-sensical (B could just let the ball go OB or come to a stop, and have good field position at the previous spot).
I’m guessing:
-If unsuccessful and untouched by B, B gets the ball at the previous spot.
-Fair Catch made in B’s end zone, will be a true touchback (stupid move by B).
-Team A would not be allowed to touch the ball until it is touched by B.
-After a fair catch by B in the field of play, the ball would belong to B at that spot (even if behind B’s 25).
-The kicker would not be able to be blocked until he has advanced at least 5-yards beyond A’s restraining line or the ball has been touched by a B player, or has touched the ground after being kicked.

Let’s see how far off I am.

Legacy Zebra · « **Reply #1 on:** April 20, 2026, 07:37:16 AM »

An onside kick wouldn’t make sense anyway, since A could have just snapped the ball after the fair catch anyway. Team A already has the ball. Why would they give B a chance to take it away? As far as everything else, I’m not sure why they’re mixing free kick and scrimmage kick rules for this. All they had to do was say “All free kick rules apply. Exception: if the kick passes through the goal in flight, Team A scores 3 points.” They’re making this way more complicated than it needs to be.

ncwingman · « **Reply #2 on:** April 20, 2026, 08:09:04 AM »

All of this got me digging a bit more into the existing rules - that you've probably already done yourself. The NCAA's statement on the rule change said they wanted to essentially have the same rule as the other codes.

The Fed rule, as you've been asking about elsewhere, is essentially a free kick that can score. Formation, timing, clock status, first touching, etc... all of that is "free kick" standard.

The NFL, on the other hand, treats it as a scrimmage kick with an odd formation, and all scrimmage kick regulations, timing, clock status, etc. apply. (11-4-3: "The rules for a field goal attempt from scrimmage apply to a field goal attempt following a fair catch (a fair catch kick).")

From what you've said so far, it sounds like the NCAA is copying the NFL rule over the Fed rule, so I would probably default to "Is this what would happen on a field goal?" as my thought process. Of course, they'll also change like three things randomly just to be difficult.

Edit - To add the rest of the NFL rule, that explicitly states that A cannot possess the ball until it has been touched by B, therefore an onside kick would be nonsensical.

ElvisLives · « **Reply #3 on:** April 20, 2026, 09:19:01 AM »

And the first one of us that has a Fair Catch Kick, get video and upload a link to it. Taking bets on how long it will take to see one.

Etref · « **Reply #4 on:** April 20, 2026, 09:44:58 AM »

Quote from: ElvisLives on April 20, 2026, 09:19:01 AM

And the first one of us that has a Fair Catch Kick, get video and upload a link to it. Taking bets on how long it will take to see one.
[/quote

Just because you said it…… will happen Week 1 noon game!

TxJim · « **Reply #5 on:** April 20, 2026, 10:08:26 AM »

So, thinking it would have to be a Valid fair catch signal given as well, (no other invalid signals given by any other player included) since the rule defines a catch after an invalid signal is not a fair catch.
And will, by interpretation, a valid fair catch signal given but the receiver was illegally contacted before an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (KCI) allow this kick?

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #6 on:** April 20, 2026, 10:20:45 AM »

I had a veteran coach ask me once if a player was stupid enough to call for a fair catch at HIS 1 yard liner, could he than free kick from there in lieu of running 3 plays and then punting from his own end zone . You may have some coaches at the NCAA level that may think 'outside the box' on this. TxJim is reminding us of the NFL FK=FG that us made last year after such a KCI call

peterparsons · « **Reply #7 on:** April 20, 2026, 11:29:51 AM »

Quote from: TxJim on April 20, 2026, 10:08:26 AM

So, thinking it would have to be a Valid fair catch signal given as well, (no other invalid signals given by any other player included) since the rule defines a catch after an invalid signal is not a fair catch.
And will, by interpretation, a valid fair catch signal given but the receiver was illegally contacted before an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (KCI) allow this kick?

NFL rules (which I also work in Europe) allow a Fair Catch Kick after an awarded fair catch (which is given if the receiver is fouled) as well as an actual completed fair catch. I'd guess that the NCAA implementation will be similar (even if the wording is different). I don't know if NFHS is any different to NFL as that's the one rule set I don't have to worry about.

In the NFL, a Fair Catch Kick is a field goal attempt from an onside kick formation (so either a held place kick or a drop kick, no tee allowed). Scrimmage kick rules apply.

I have seen one live. There was an unsuccessful attempt in the 2019 game in London between the Panthers and the Bucs at the end of the first half.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #8 on:** April 20, 2026, 12:16:01 PM »

We New Englanders well remember the huge comeback in the Super bowl vs the Falcons to win in OT. With only seconds remaining in regulation ,the Pats made a FC at their own 39 . It was later mentioned that they could have FKed for a 71 yard field goal BUT IF MISSED the Falcons would take possession at the spot of the missed kick. Coach B musta' thought that thru

.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #9 on:** April 21, 2026, 06:47:36 AM »

.....On a second thought, treating FC/FK as a scrimmage kick, wouldn't a missed one bring the ball back to the previous spot - like a missed FG from a scrimmage down

peterparsons · « **Reply #10 on:** April 21, 2026, 08:40:15 AM »

In NFL rules, a missed FG goes back to the spot of the kick, including on regular plays from scrimmage (which is why R drops a bean bag level with the holder on FG attempts). It'll be interesting to see what the NCAA decide to do with the ball after a missed FC kick. They may use the spot of the kick. I'm not sure anything else makes sense.

ElvisLives · « **Reply #11 on:** April 21, 2026, 09:29:58 AM »

Quote from: peterparsons on April 21, 2026, 08:40:15 AM

In NFL rules, a missed FG goes back to the spot of the kick, including on regular plays from scrimmage (which is why R drops a bean bag level with the holder on FG attempts). It'll be interesting to see what the NCAA decide to do with the ball after a missed FC kick. They may use the spot of the kick. I'm not sure anything else makes sense.

This is one of the biggest reasons very, very few of us will ever see a fair catch kick. If the NCAA treats the kick like a scrimmage kick, then, yes, when a kick doesn’t score, and is untouched by B, the ball belongs to B at the previous spot. That is a huge risk for Team A, and, IMHO, will make a Fair Catch Kick something to be used only in desperation, or if time in the second period will expire during the down. As I see it, the primary advantage of a Fair Catch Kick the fact that there is no chance it will be blocked. Well, I shouldn’t say ‘no’ chance. I suppose a really bad, low, kick could get blocked. But that blocking would, at best, be some 10-yards beyond Team A’s restraining line. I would think that would qualify as touching by Team B. So, considering a Fair Catch Kick would not likely be made nearer than the B-40, Team B should just let the kick happen, and not even attempt to touch the ball.

peterparsons · « **Reply #12 on:** April 21, 2026, 10:37:21 AM »

I agree. I think it's a "we've no time left and we think we've got more chance of kicking a field goal with no rush and no snap to go wrong than completing a Hail Mary for a TD" play, which is why they are so rare.

TxJim · « **Reply #13 on:** April 22, 2026, 09:46:49 AM »

So, after seeing the preliminary RQ post, will be waiting for the formation requirements to be written into Rule 6-1-2-a, b and c.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #14 on:** May 07, 2026, 07:01:18 AM »

My demented mind, after today's baseball rainout as umpire, came up with two more differences of treatig a FC>FK as a scrimmage kick.....

(1) With the clock off on a scrimmage kick the clock would start on the snap or kick on FKs.

(2) IF kicker slips/stumbles/ whatever as about to kick and kicks a 'grounder' ; K's recovery if kick had gone 10 yards would be treated as first touching and B's ball.

There may be other differences, but my brain stopped at those.....

Kalle · « **Reply #15 on:** May 07, 2026, 09:31:41 AM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on May 07, 2026, 07:01:18 AM

K's recovery if kick had gone 10 yards would be treated as first touching and B's ball.

Minor nitpick: it's illegal touching here, one of the most annoying differences to me. I would really like to know why NCAA and NFHS have decided to name it differently.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #16 on:** May 07, 2026, 12:07:00 PM »

Quote from: Kalle on May 07, 2026, 09:31:41 AM

Minor nitpick: it's illegal touching here, one of the most annoying differences to me. I would really like to know why NCAA and NFHS have decided to name it differently.

The NFHS decided to allow the FC>FK back in 1943 and it remained the same even after the return kick was removed in the 1960's (simular to CFL rule). I guess the NCAA didn't want to adopt that part

.

Kalle · « **Reply #17 on:** May 08, 2026, 04:31:28 AM »

Quote from: Ralph Damren on May 07, 2026, 12:07:00 PM

The NFHS decided to allow the FC>FK back in 1943 and it remained the same even after the return kick was removed in the 1960's (simular to CFL rule). I guess the NCAA didn't want to adopt that part .

I actually meant the "illegal touching" <-> "first touching" difference.

Ralph Damren · « **Reply #18 on:** May 08, 2026, 06:51:13 AM »

Quote from: Kalle on May 08, 2026, 04:31:28 AM

I actually meant the "illegal touching" <-> "first touching" difference.

Me thinks $:-\$ the NFHS felt using word 'illegal' might cause some of us to think a

should follow

.

Other uses of the term 'first touching' : Bubba's first touching

of the prom queen might be his last touching IF her boyfriend was nearby

.

bossman72 · « **Reply #19 on:** May 08, 2026, 07:35:07 AM »

Quote from: Kalle on May 07, 2026, 09:31:41 AM

Minor nitpick: it's illegal touching here, one of the most annoying differences to me. I would really like to know why NCAA and NFHS have decided to name it differently.

Likely to distinguish between illegal touching (the foul) and illegal touching (the violation). If you say "first touching" you know it's about a kick being illegally touched. I actually like the NFHS nomenclature here. I believe the NFL has the same terminology, but I'm not positive.

peterparsons · « **Reply #20 on:** May 11, 2026, 09:47:52 AM »

Quote from: bossman72 on May 08, 2026, 07:35:07 AM

Likely to distinguish between illegal touching (the foul) and illegal touching (the violation). If you say "first touching" you know it's about a kick being illegally touched. I actually like the NFHS nomenclature here. I believe the NFL has the same terminology, but I'm not positive.

The NFL does, yes.

ElvisLives · « **Reply #21 on:** May 11, 2026, 11:48:27 AM »

“Illegal Touching” is better for kicking plays, because there may be several spots of such Illegal Touching during the same kick play, and ‘first touching’ can make some folks think that only the first time/location that a player of Team A touches the ball (before Team B touches it) is illegal. A subsequent touching of the ball may be more advantageous to Team B, so the true spot of ‘first touching’ may be meaningless.

Just for fun
While possible, it would be exceptionally rare to have Illegal Touching of a forward pass AND Illegal Touching of a kick during the same down. But it could look like this:
4/10, 50, east hash, 6:00 (2), A=7, B=0.
Potential punter A11 catches the snap, then throws the ball from the A-40 toward back A33. At the A-47, A33 is legally blocked to the ground by B99. A77 sees that A33 is not able to receive the pass, and reaches out and catches the pass at the A-47, and attempts to advance the ball. Surrounded by Team B players at the A-47, A77 punts the ball cleanly. The ball flies downfield to the B-25, where A88 bats the ball to the B-28, where A77 muffs the ball, which rolls out of bounds at the B-24 at 5:45 (2).
Ruling: B, 1/10, A-45, east hash, 5:45 (2), snap (25). All spots of illegal touching of a kick (B-25, B-28) are refused by Team B, and the 5-yard penalty for A77’s foul for Illegal Touching of a legal forward pass is accepted and enforced at the previous spot, taking the ball to the A-45, with Loss of Down; thus, Team B is awarded a scrimmage series at the A-45.
There. That was fun.

bossman72 · « **Reply #22 on:** May 12, 2026, 10:25:27 AM »

Quote from: ElvisLives on May 11, 2026, 11:48:27 AM

“Illegal Touching” is better for kicking plays, because there may be several spots of such Illegal Touching during the same kick play, and ‘first touching’ can make some folks think that only the first time/location that a player of Team A touches the ball (before Team B touches it) is illegal. A subsequent touching of the ball may be more advantageous to Team B, so the true spot of ‘first touching’ may be meaningless.

While that may be true, I've only seen once in my career where the first illegal touching spot was not the best illegal touching spot.
I may have a clip of it in the archives somewhere.