New Free Kick Rule

[TampaSteve]

Just to clarify.
K cannot engage/block R until they can legally touch the ball (the 50 yd line)
If R goes beyond the 50 to engage K, I take it K can certainly legally engage, right?

[SanDiegoStryker]

The comments on the rule change states:
"The committee changed the rule to prohibit members of the kicking team from initiating contact (blocking) against members of the receiving team until the ball has broken the plane of the receiving team’s restraining line, or until the kicking team is eligible to recover the free-kick. Kicking team members are permitted to block if blocked by members of the receiving team prior to either of these conditions being met."

I think the key work is initiate. K cannot block R unless R blocks him first.

[Atlanta Blue]

Onside kicks are the football definition of all hell breaking loose.  Add in the new rule, and it just got worse.  And oh yeah, in many places, you have to do it with a 5 man crew (less in sub-varsity games), which means you probably have only two officials, one on each restraining line, who now have to watch each team staying onside, how far the ball travels, who touches it when, and add on top of that, where the first blocks take place, where the ball was at the time of that block, and in some cases, who initiated the block.

Good luck with that.  This was a rule change that was looking for a problem to solve, and no one really thought about the mechanics of working it.

[HLinNC]

This was a rule change that was looking for a problem

Not the first time they've done that.  My thought is this, and you can tell me I'm wrong.
I think HS coaches watch CFB on Saturday, see what  certain NCAA rule is and go " by golly, we need that rule".  They make a few calls, write a few e-mails and voila.

[Atlanta Blue]

Not the first time they've done that.  My thought is this, and you can tell me I'm wrong.
I think HS coaches watch CFB on Saturday, see what  certain NCAA rule is and go " by golly, we need that rule".  They make a few calls, write a few e-mails and voila.

While I think that is true to a point, I'm not sure this one was coach driven.  Coaches typically want LESS restrictive rules: uncatchable passes, outside the tackle box, etc.

[TampaSteve]

The comments on the rule change states:
"The committee changed the rule to prohibit members of the kicking team from initiating contact (blocking) against members of the receiving team until the ball has broken the plane of the receiving team’s restraining line, or until the kicking team is eligible to recover the free-kick. Kicking team members are permitted to block if blocked by members of the receiving team prior to either of these conditions being met."

I think the key work is initiate. K cannot block R unless R blocks him first.

Thx for getting this.
K "is permitted to block, if blocked prior to..."
or
K 'can't blocked until R blocks him first'

So if K can't 'block until blocked', that means R can stand 10-wide (not blocking) in front of the 50, shoulder, to shoulder shielding the R player catching the ball at the 50 and R can never engage.
   scratching my head.

wouldn't R stepping beyong the 50 be initiating action?

I understand the intent of the rule is to probably prevent K from knocking back a R player trying to make a play on a sky-high ball in front of the 50 while another K player comes behind him to catch the ball.

Is it me, or is this rule written a bit poorly.

[Atlanta Blue]

Is it me, or is this rule written a bit poorly.

Maybe both? 

The rule was taken almost directly from the NCAA, where it is the most missed call in the books on onside kicks.

I understand why the rule was written, and I'm probably one of the reasons for it.  We have (had) and onside kick where the kicker would "drag" kick the ball, rolling it along the ground and running beside it until it reached 10 yards, where he would fall on it.  The two players on either side of him were responsible for blocking any front line player in the direction the kick was going.  When done right, when recovered about 90% of these kicks.  After all, the area where the ball was going to finish was cleared out by the blockers.  Why didn't it work 100% of the time?  It's d@mn hard to hit the football just right to keep it in control for 10 yards, and get the timing just right.

So I KIND OF understand the reason for the rule.  But if they wanted to add this rule, it should have said K can't block R that is behind the restraining line until the ball has broken the receiver's restraining line, or the ball has been touched.  If R moves forward, too bad for R.

This is I'm sure there wasn't a kicking coach on the committee that was writing this one!

[HLinNC]

Much like the horsecollar rule, which I felt was not an epidemic, the law of unintended consequences will reign this fall.

Now in addition to "THAT'S HOLDIN', HE'S HOLDIN' ", "Dey broke duh huddle wif tway-ulv!",  "HORSECOLLAR!!, DAT'S UH HORSECOLLAR!", we can add "HE BLOCKED, HE CAIN'T BLOCK!" to the ensemble.

[TampaSteve]

maybe add verbiage about an R player attempting to secure the ball & K can't block until they can legally touch the ball. (?)

[ECILLJ]

I agree that there will be confusion regarding who first engaged the block. The Federation did address kick-off coverage by changing our kick-off mechanics to provide an official on each end of R's line.