« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: KCI enforcement  (Read 7239 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline sj_31

  • *
  • Posts: 109
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-0
KCI enforcement
« on: March 28, 2012, 11:02:37 AM »
4/10 @ A-20. Punt returner B1 is at the B-40 looking up in anticipation of catching the punt. B1 does not give a fair catch signal. A1 tries to time the tackle as there is no FC signal. A1 contacts B1 simultaneously to the ball arriving at the B-40 causing B1 to muff the ball. BJ throws his flag for this action. B2 then recovers the loose ball and advances to the A-40 where he is tackled.

The contact by A1:
a) could
b) could not
also be classified as action that constitutes a personal foul.

Enforcement?

« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 11:12:53 AM by sj_31 »
Logged

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3418
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-35
Re: KCI enforcement
« Reply #1 on: March 28, 2012, 11:59:16 AM »
Team B obviously will decline the penalty for KCI, 1st and 10 for team B at A-40.

There is no similar language to 7-3-9-e for kicks, so there is no possibility to treat the KCI as a PF. I'm very much willing to hear of a JA/RR interpretation to the contrary, as I think there should be an option to enforce a) as a PF from A-40 (or A-20, repeat the down).
Logged

Offline Andrew McCarthy

  • *
  • Posts: 1010
  • FAN REACTION: +21/-6
Re: KCI enforcement
« Reply #2 on: March 28, 2012, 12:24:09 PM »
A situation like this was discussed in this thread...

http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=8710.0
Logged

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: KCI enforcement
« Reply #3 on: March 28, 2012, 04:53:51 PM »
What you describe is 'simple' KCI, and can only be enforced as a spot foul. There is no option to add it to the spot where the dead ball belongs to B. However, if the contact is ALSO a targeting action, then, by RR interpretation of 3-22-12, it SHALL be added to the spot where the dead-ball belongs to B. We have to know and judge the difference between mis-timed normal contact and targeting.
Logged

Offline Amir

  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • BAFRA member
    • LinkedIn
Re: KCI enforcement
« Reply #4 on: March 29, 2012, 05:13:49 AM »
Quote from: sj_31 on March 28, 2012, 11:02:37 AM
B2 then recovers the loose ball and advances to the A-400 where he is tackled.
Poor fella - he must be tired after that.
As far as the question itself goes, I agree with Macman. Whether or not this is a PF as well as KCI would depend on what kind of contact is made. If A1 targets the receiver with the crown of his helmet or targets him at the neck or head, then flag it for a PF and tack it onto the end of the run.
« Last Edit: March 29, 2012, 05:23:24 AM by Amir »
Logged
Now look, you know different people think about life in different ways. Lawyers think life is a big court room, doctors probably think life is like a big operation, and bus drivers think life is... er... a big bus I guess, who knows what the hell those guys think. Anyway, I've always thought of life as a big football game...

Offline Osric Pureheart

  • *
  • Posts: 592
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-7
  • 1373937 or 308?
Re: KCI enforcement
« Reply #5 on: March 29, 2012, 06:10:43 AM »
Maybe that's the future of football?  You play it on a field 1000 yards long with no end zones as a game of pure field position, and the object is to be in the other team's half after 60 minutes.

(The stands may have to be motorised to keep up with the ball, but I think we may just be on to something here!)
Logged

Diablo

  • Guest
Re: KCI enforcement
« Reply #6 on: March 29, 2012, 12:56:23 PM »
Quote from: El Macman on March 28, 2012, 04:53:51 PM
What you describe is 'simple' KCI, and can only be enforced as a spot foul. There is no option to add it to the spot where the dead ball belongs to B. However, if the contact is ALSO a targeting action, then, by RR interpretation of 3-22-12, it SHALL be added to the spot where the dead-ball belongs to B. We have to know and judge the difference between mis-timed normal contact and targeting.

What if, instead of targeting per se, the Team B player horse collared the receiver or grab & twisted his face mask - tack on?
Logged

El Macman

  • Guest
Re: KCI enforcement
« Reply #7 on: March 29, 2012, 03:28:05 PM »
Quote from: Diablo on March 29, 2012, 12:56:23 PM
What if, instead of targeting per se, the Team B player horse collared the receiver or grab & twisted his face mask - tack on?

RR's specific ruling referenced targeting, but I'd feel 100% confident and safe ruling any contact of the personal foul nature to qualify for penalizing at the spot where the dead-ball belongs to B. Erring on the side of safety rarely gets one in trouble.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2012, 07:15:12 AM by El Macman »
Logged

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 2292
  • FAN REACTION: +310/-29
Re: KCI enforcement
« Reply #8 on: March 29, 2012, 09:22:03 PM »
Quote from: El Macman on March 29, 2012, 03:28:05 PM
RR's specific ruling referenced targeting, but I'd feel 100% confident and safe ruling any contact of the personal foul nature to qualify for penalizing at the spot where the dead-bal lbelongs to B. Erring on the side of safety rarely gets one in trouble.

I would agree.  Any foul by A except KCI can be tacked on to the dead ball spot where it belongs to B.  This was in one of our video bulletins this year where the KCI was a personal foul.
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »