Kicking the ball

[ktffan]

Is it legal in the NCAA to kick the ball to your hands to make a catch?

[patton]

By rule, this would be illegal. Rule 9-4-4, A player shall not kick a loose ball, a forward pass or a ball being held for a place kick by an opponent. However, Rule 2-15-1 states that "Kicking the ball is intentionally striking the ball with knee, lower leg or foot". Therefore, we'd need to use our judgement on whether this was or wasn't an intentional act before flagging.

[TXMike]

Nebraska missouri 1997

[ktffan]

Nebraska missouri 1997

Which counted.  It should not have?

[Grant - AR]

Nebraska missouri 1997

Has it been that long?   

[scl-man]

I do not know of any rule that makes it illegal for an A player to catch a ball he legally kicked.  A punter could kick to ball straight up in the air and legally catch it as long as the ball doesn't cross the neutral zone.

[TXMike]

Should not have counted. There is a disparity in the rules that permits batting but not kicking of a foward pass.

[TXMike]

http://m.youtube.com/watch?desktop_uri=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DOvTaN1uplS4&v=OvTaN1uplS4&gl=US

[ktffan]

Should not have counted. There is a disparity in the rules that permits batting but not kicking of a foward pass.

Might it be that way because kicking the ball opens up another set of rules?

[TXMike]

Not sure what you mean,  this act is illegally kicking the ball so the normal kick rules do not apply.

[ktffan]

Not sure what you mean,  this act is illegally kicking the ball so the normal kick rules do not apply.

I meant a legal kick would open up other rules, so it might confuse things.  For instance, would throwing a ball to a receiver behind the line and he kicks the ball be a punt instead of an illegal act?  I don't know, I'm theorizing and asking.

[chymechowder]

That wouldnt be a punt. I dont have my book, but i'm pretty sure a punt is defined as dropping the ball and kicking it before it hits the ground.

[Curious]

Should not have counted. There is a disparity in the rules that permits batting but not kicking of a foward pass.

Mike, just "curious"....

Looking at this play in slow mo (and ignoring for a minute what the Nebraska receiver said in the interview) are you able to discern intent?  I can't.  In real time, it would have been impossible.

With today's technology, I'm not even sure if the Review Official could tell.  

Question though, under current replay rules, could this play (and "no call") even be reviewed/reversed?

[TXMike]

I agree.  Without the confession we have nothing

[ktffan]

Mike, just "curious"....

Looking at this play in slow mo (and ignoring for a minute what the Nebraska receiver said in the interview) are you able to discern intent?  I can't.  In real time, it would have been impossible.

With today's technology, I'm not even sure if the Review Official could tell.  

Question though, under current replay rules, could this play (and "no call") even be reviewed/reversed?

In real time, unlikely.  However, the replay shows a completely unnatural leg whip, which a player falling backwards would not have done.

[chymechowder]

I agree.  Without the confession we have nothing

This sounds like a line from Law & Order, said by a frustrated dist. attorney after a judge rules that the suspect hadn't been properly Mirandized, and as such, his confession is inadmissable.

Then the d.a. yells at the cops for bending the rules. Then the cops yell back that if the d.a. had done his job properly 3 years ago, this scumbag wouldnt' have been back on the street to begin with.

[TXMike]

Been there, done that

[Curious]

In real time, unlikely.  However, the replay shows a completely unnatural leg whip, which a player falling backwards would not have done.

But, could this "no call" be reviewed/challenged/reversed under today's Replay Rules?  Could the replay guy really come up with enough evidence to make the judgement of intent?

[ktffan]

But, could this "no call" be reviewed/challenged/reversed under today's Replay Rules?  Could the replay guy really come up with enough evidence to make the judgement of intent?

It's my understanding that the call is a judgement call and not reviewable.  If I were in the booth and asked for my judgement, I'd say I'd rule he did it, based on the replay at 3:00.  Like I said, the leg whip is not natural for that position, it's was clear he purposely kicked at that ball.

[RedTD]

Not reviewable under today's rules

[The Ref Thats Lef]

I meant a legal kick would open up other rules, so it might confuse things.  For instance, would throwing a ball to a receiver behind the line and he kicks the ball be a punt instead of an illegal act?  I don't know, I'm theorizing and asking.

yes it does. I know I have said this before ( a long time ago) but what it team A have no timeouts and have the QB take a snap and do a quick kick to himself. He can then run knowing the clock will stop at the end of the play as it is one which contained a legal scrimmage kick.