KCI Stanford/Oregon

[golfingref]

KCI call made by BJ on scrimmage kick.  Quick fair catch signal given by R.  No contact was made, appeared at least 3 feet or more between K and receiver.  Catch completed.  Why would KCI be called in this instance?  Play occurred in the 3rd quarter, I believe.

[blindref757]

I saw that and questioned it too.  It didn't seem fair for the receiver to give the signal so late...and get the KCI call too...especially if he wasn't blown up like he should have been giving that signal so late.  The D player showed great restraint...and he must not have interfered because the R player caught the ball without incident.

[The Ref Thats Lef]

[yt=425,350]YxIZK7VmOVs[/yt]
I think this is the play.

[JasonTX]

Let's ignore the signal for the moment because with or without a signal you have to have an unimpeded oppurtunity.  He was closer than 3 ft.  Maybe the team A player was yelling something to distract him.  I would probably not have a flag after seeing this replay but we just need to remember that contact is not required for a foul, nor is a player removed from fouling even if the the return player catches the ball.

[TxGrayhat]

He made the catch. K didn't hit him just waited for him to make catch.. No Foul in my book

[blindref757]

Let's ignore the signal for the moment because with or without a signal you have to have an unimpeded oppurtunity.  He was closer than 3 ft.  Maybe the team A player was yelling something to distract him.  I would probably not have a flag after seeing this replay but we just need to remember that contact is not required for a foul, nor is a player removed from fouling even if the the return player catches the ball.

I agree with everything you said here...that is the book.

Then there is the real world.  The principle of Advantage/Disadvantage applies here bigtime.  If the kid makes the catch and doesn't get hit...there is no disadvantage.  If the defender is yelling at him, big deal...unless he drops it...then you have a flag for ACTUAL interference.  Flagging this play puts us back to the old Halo rule...which the rules makers specifically wanted to get rid of.

[TxBJ]

I agree with everything you said here...that is the book.

Then there is the real world.  The principle of Advantage/Disadvantage applies here bigtime.  If the kid makes the catch and doesn't get hit...there is no disadvantage.  If the defender is yelling at him, big deal...unless he drops it...then you have a flag for ACTUAL interference.  Flagging this play puts us back to the old Halo rule...which the rules makers specifically wanted to get rid of.

Here is the problem with that.  If the defender yells at him on every punt but he catches them, then on the last one late in the 4th quarter of a tight ballgame the defender yells at him and he drops it, are you going to penalize for something you have been letting him do all night?  That wouldn't be good.  If you warn him after the first one and then if he does it again you penalize whether he catches it or not, I could probably go with that.  But you can't let him do it all night based on whether it is caught or not.

[Sonofanump]

Perhaps the BJ expected the B player to catch the ball where he was originally standing and not back up a step to catch the ball.  It looks like contact was almost made at :35 of the youtube clip.

[sj]

For those who can access it what might be the difference(s) between this play and the 1st play in the special teams section of the 2010 pre-season training DVD where the B was credited with a good call.

 

[NVFOA_Ump]

Then there is the real world.  The principle of Advantage/Disadvantage applies here bigtime.  If the kid makes the catch and doesn't get hit...there is no disadvantage. 

IMO that's not the issue here.  He's in his face, virtually no space at all, then he even stays with him when he backs up a bit.  The fact that the receiver managed to keep his focus and catch the ball IMO does not in any way erase the clear KCI.  I'd go with a flag on this one without question.

[KB]

If any of the officials on the field actually ruled this a fair catch, a serious downgrade woul be in order. The ball became dead because of an invalid signal.
The announcement reflects this: no personal foul, so the "FC" had no effect on the call.

[blindref757]

IMO that's not the issue here.  He's in his face, virtually no space at all, then he even stays with him when he backs up a bit.  The fact that the receiver managed to keep his focus and catch the ball IMO does not in any way erase the clear KCI.  I'd go with a flag on this one without question.

So are you saying that the Halo is still a part of this call?  Do we call pass interference when the defender is in his face but not making contact?  The same principle should apply here--interference (verbal is possibly a rare exception) should require contact that creates an advantage/disadvantage situation.

[Welpe]

Hasn't Parry, Redding (or both) stated that contact is not required for KCI to be called?

[Grant - AR]

Hasn't Parry, Redding (or both) stated that contact is not required for KCI to be called?

That is correct.  Contact is not required for KCI.

[Sonofanump]

Hasn't Parry, Redding (or both) stated that contact is not required for KCI to be called?

Yes.

We just pregamed this yesterday working a NCAA JV game with a few new guys.

[Diablo]

He made the catch. K didn't hit him just waited for him to make catch.. No Foul in my book

The common name KCI is not accurate and is also misleading.  Rather than "kick catch interference", the rules forbid "interference with the OPPORTUNITY to catch".  Interference with the opportunity may have occurred, regardless of whether the receiver actually caught the ball.

[chymechowder]

So are you saying that the Halo is still a part of this call?  Do we call pass interference when the defender is in his face but not making contact?  The same principle should apply here--interference (verbal is possibly a rare exception) should require contact that creates an advantage/disadvantage situation.

So you're saying team A should be able to waive their hands in front of the eyes of a punt returner standing underneath the ball?

I'm not for the halo rule, but we can't say that anything goes so long as there isn't contact.

Forward passes and punts are not the same.  Same principle shoulnd't apply, imo.

[blindref757]

I guess I'm just going to show my hard-headedness here.  I understand what the rules interpreters are saying about interference and lack of contact.  But I still have to question the notion that a player was interfered with if he successfully catches the ball (fairness), and is not hit (safety).  I agree that the threat of interference is there...and would flag anything within the old "halo" if the receiver were to muff or fumble it.  But a successful catch indicates that the supposed interference didn't create a disadvantage.  Some players are just good enough to play through it and make the play.  If they are, then why tack on a flag?  We are here to ensure fairness and safety.

[NVFOA_Ump]

So we let it go 4 or 5 times against the home team because the highly skilled receiver manages to catch the ball, and the first time the visitors get too close and the receiver drops the ball (he's not quite as highly skilled) we flag it?

IMO that's a non-starter and not worth discussing.  The guidelines are clear that interference with an unimpeded opportunity to catch a kick is a foul, no contact required, make a judgment and flag or not flag.  Whether he catches the ball or not IMO should not be the primary focus.

[Etref]

So we let it go 4 or 5 times against the home team because the highly skilled receiver manages to catch the ball, and the first time the visitors get too close and the receiver drops the ball (he's not quite as highly skilled) we flag it?

IMO that's a non-starter and not worth discussing.  The guidelines are clear that interference with an unimpeded opportunity to catch a kick is a foul, no contact required, make a judgment and flag or not flag.  Whether he catches the ball or not IMO should not be the primary focus.

 

[harrell12]

Not sure we're all looking at the same play here.  I see no foul and as a B, I would not flag this play.  I'd shut it down after the catch due to the invalid signal.  The defender actually takes a half or less step back away from the receiver, the receiver makes the catch without having to move or dodge the defender.  I'm in total agreement with everyone that you don't have to have contact to have a foul but come on, are we really saying this is a foul?  Absolutely no advantage gained and no player safety issue involved with this play.  Flag the train wrecks, not this little fender bender.