Another kicking game situation

[dch]

Two situations (one occurred in a recent game) that have generated a lot of discussion in our group:

1.  4th down punt, 2 receivers deep.  R1 blocks K33 from the side and into R2 just before the ball arrives.  Immediately after the contact of K33 with R2 the ball, in flight, hits R2 in the shoulder and is then recovered by K86.

2.  Similar to 1 above except R1 blocks K33 in the back.

Any fouls?  Whose ball?  Where? What down is it?

I've always felt that football would be easier for us if kicking the ball was not allowed. 

[mbyron]

1. K33's contact with R2 is not KCI because he was blocked into R2. The covering official must judge whether R2's contact with the ball was caused by K33's contact with him (6-2-4). If it was, then R2's touching the ball is nothing, and K86's recovery is first touching; if it was not, then that's a muff, and K86 may recover (but not advance) the ball. (I'd lean to the former option unless the touch was slight and the muff was gross.)

2. IBB foul on R1. If R2's touching is not a muff, then R will be next to put the ball in play, and the IBB will have PSK enforcement from the end of the kick. If R2's touching is a muff, then K will decline the IBB to keep the ball.

[dch]

So what you are saying is that while K's contact with R is not kick-catching interference because K was blocked into R --- BUT K is responsible (even tho blocked into) for the kick touching R.  Therefore R didn't touch it?  That is my dilemma, on the one hand K is not responsible, but R isn't responsible either.   

[mbyron]

Right: you have 2 distinct issues:
1. When K contacts R, is that KCI? No, because K was blocked into R.
2. When the ball contacts R, is that a muff? No, because R was blocked into the ball.

The basis for the answer to 1 is 6-5-6: "K shall not:
a. Touch the ball or R, unless blocked into the ball or R, or to ward off a blocker"

The basis for the answer to 2 is 6-2-4: "Such touching [of the ball by R] is ignored if it is caused by K pushing or blocking R into contact with the ball..."

The latter rule usually applies to an R player engaged with a K player being pushed into the ball rolling around, but the provision applies to your case as well: the contact with K prevented R from catching or avoiding the ball.

In a way, your conclusion is right: K isn't responsible for contacting R, and R isn't responsible for contacting the ball. That means: no foul. Play the bounce!

[dch]

I'm not disagreeing with what you have concluded -- but I'm not quite ready to agree with it either.

Let's look at case 2.  K33 is fouled by R1 (block in the back).  This foul by R1 causes K33 to bump into R2.  We all understand that this is not kick-catching interference (6-5-6).  Since K33 was fouled into R2 - how can we say that K33 caused the contact with R2 that negates R2 being touched by the ball?   

anyone else have an opinion on this?

[hoochycoochy]

I got nuttin' in 1.

In 2. I got a BIB on R, which would be previous spot since K will be next to put the ball in play at the end of the down.  K declines and keeps the ball. 

In either case, but for R1's shove of K33, R2 wouldn't have muffed the ball. 

[golfingref]

mbyron has it. The thing I tell myself is "forced touching is ignored". By keeping that straight in my head, it helps to keep everything clear that is happening around the returner. Now if the forced touching is an illegal block, then the foul is not ignored, just as in case 2.

[Curious]

Right: you have 2 distinct issues:

2. When the ball contacts R, is that a muff? No, because R was blocked into the ball.

The basis for the answer to 2 is 6-2-4: "Such touching [of the ball by R] is ignored if it is caused by K pushing or blocking R into contact with the ball..."

The latter rule usually applies to an R player engaged with a K player being pushed into the ball rolling around, but the provision applies to your case as well: the contact with K prevented R from catching or avoiding the ball.

In a way, your conclusion is right: K isn't responsible for contacting R, and R isn't responsible for contacting the ball. That means: no foul. Play the bounce!

I'm not so sure that we can ignore R's muff. I believe what is "ignored" is a foul for KCI; but not the result of the play.  Since R pushed K into R, it seems to me that R1 is responsible for R2's muff.

I'm not disagreeing with what you have concluded -- but I'm not quite ready to agree with it either.

Let's look at case 2.  K33 is fouled by R1 (block in the back).  This foul by R1 causes K33 to bump into R2.  We all understand that this is not kick-catching interference (6-5-6).  Since K33 was fouled into R2 - how can we say that K33 caused the contact with R2 that negates R2 being touched by the ball?   

anyone else have an opinion on this?

Stirring the pot...nice!  See my comments above.  Maybe it's just semantics; but I don't think we can treat the play as if muff never happened.  mbyron, you're up!

[dch]

Well said curious.

Now I'm anxious to hear from Bob M and Atlanta Blue

[mbyron]

I'm not so sure that we can ignore R's muff. I believe what is "ignored" is a foul for KCI; but not the result of the play.  Since R pushed K into R, it seems to me that R1 is responsible for R2's muff.

Stirring the pot...nice!  See my comments above.  Maybe it's just semantics; but I don't think we can treat the play as if muff never happened.  mbyron, you're up!

The covering official must judge whether K blocked or pushed R into the kick. If so, it's not a muff; if not, it's a muff. It doesn't matter WHY K pushed R into the kick, or whether it was accidental or intentional.

We don't treat a muff as if it never happened. We judge whether touching the ball constitutes a muff. My answer to the cases addresses both possible judgments.

I also stated that K's touch would have to be VERY slight, and R's muff VERY obvious for me to treat these cases as muffs. When K bumps R, I'm giving R the benefit of the doubt: remember that K's punt signals their intent to turn over the ball, and R loses the right to the ball only if they screw up their part of it. K might not be guilty of a foul here, but I'm not allowing their contact with R (by itself) to earn them the ball.

[Curious]

The covering official must judge whether K blocked or pushed R into the kick. If so, it's not a muff; if not, it's a muff. It doesn't matter WHY K pushed R into the kick, or whether it was accidental or intentional.

But R is pushing K...

We don't treat a muff as if it never happened. We judge whether touching the ball constitutes a muff. My answer to the cases addresses both possible judgments.

What else could it be?

I also stated that K's touch would have to be VERY slight, and R's muff VERY obvious for me to treat these cases as muffs. When K bumps R, I'm giving R the benefit of the doubt: remember that K's punt signals their intent to turn over the ball, and R loses the right to the ball only if they screw up their part of it. K might not be guilty of a foul here, but I'm not allowing their contact with R (by itself) to earn them the ball.

If K is absolved from KCI here, why wouldn't they earn the right to the ball (if they recover) following the touch/muff by R?  (5-1-3f)

[mbyron]

If K is absolved from KCI here, why wouldn't they earn the right to the ball (if they recover) following the touch/muff by R?  (5-1-3f)

Already answered. 6-2-4

[Curious]

Already answered. 6-2-4

Respectfully, I'm still having problems accepting 6-2-4 as the argument for "ignoring" R2's muff - since R1 did the "pushing or blocking" (resulting in K's contact with R2); and I DO think that whether it's intentional or accidental is relevant.  The OP does not suggest that K did something on his own to disrupt R2.

Maybe another perspective can help here.  Somebody else want to weigh in?

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The "forced touching" rules in 6-1 (free kick) and 6.2 (scrimmage kick) were added aroun 5 or six seasons back. the express purpose of those rules was to prevent K from initiating contact with R or with the loose ball that would result in R touching the ball or vice versa. Such touching could give K a distinct advantage since the touching of the kick by R would make it a free ball available for either team to recover. The intent of the rule was solely to prevent K from blocking R into the ball or batting/muffing the ball into R to gain that unfair advantage.

In the original play. K did not block R. The fact that he touched him at all had nothing to do with his actions but rather the receiver's teammate's actions. Do not ignore R's touching of the kick. As hoocycoochy said, "In #1, I got nuttin' "  In #2, if K accepts the penalty for R's BIB (he won't!) enforce from previous spot, since result of the play will have K next entitled to put the ball in play.