Author Topic: Question on Illegal Batting  (Read 1157 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Whodatboy18

  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Don't blame me for your coaching
Question on Illegal Batting
« on: December 03, 2021, 11:26:11 AM »
I have a question on batting I have been pondering for a few days now.

A 4/9 @ A-5. A4's punt is not blocked and crosses the neutral zone. B10 muffs the ball at the A-15. In the scramble to recover, the ball ends up in Team A's end zone. In an attempt to keep the other team from recovering the ball...
1.) A20 bats the ball out of the back of the end zone.
2.) B20 bats the ball out of the back of the end zone.

It is my thought that the original impetus for the ball being in the end zone would be applied to team A from the original punt, since the muff would be deemed to not add impetus. However, another consideration is that the ball crossed the neutral zone and was touched by the receiving team, therefore Team A can gain possession and a new set of downs, but not advance the ball.

1.)  This would be a safety for Team B with kickoff at the A-20.

2.) I am a bit lost here. Is this a touchback? It seems strange since the team responsible for the ball in the end zone is Team A. If it isn't, where is the enforcement spot since the punt crossed the neutral zone and the ball was never possessed by team B? Can you go back to the previous spot and apply the 10 yard penalty?

On a secondary note, for this same original sequence of events, but A20 possesses the ball in the end zone, is this a touchback by rule since Team A can not advance the ball, or does original impetus play a role here as well?

Any enlightenment would be greatly appreciated.

Offline Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 953
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-9
Re: Question on Illegal Batting
« Reply #1 on: December 03, 2021, 11:42:09 AM »
The only impetus that matters is what put the ball behind the goal line. Anything added after that is irrelevant even if new impetus puts the ball out of bounds. So no matter who bats the ball, the pure result of this play is a safety because Team A’s punt is the impetus that is responsible for the ball going across the goal line. If Team A bats the ball, the penalty and result are the same: safety. If Team B punts, the penalty is enforced from the previous spot. Because Team B would not put the ball in play next, PSK enforcement does not apply. So you just have a foul by the team not in possession which os enforced from the basic spot. The basic spot for a scrimmage kick play is the previous spot. Because it was 4th and 9, the yardage will result in a first down for Team A. It will be A, 1/10 @ A-15.

If Team A simply recovers the kick, it is a safety. The ball is dead immediately since the kick crossed the neutral zone by rule. Muffing a loose ball that is not at rest does not add new impetus, so Team A’s punt is still what put the ball behind the goal line. So Team A is now in legal possession of the ball behind their own goal line and they are responsible for it being there. That is a safety.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 3406
  • FAN REACTION: +161/-143
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Question on Illegal Batting
« Reply #2 on: December 03, 2021, 02:26:03 PM »
A 4/9 @ A-5. A4's punt is not blocked and crosses the neutral zone.

Legacy gave you everything you were asking about. But, just know that "blocking" of the kick has no bearing on anything. Understand that, by rule, blocking is ANY amount of contact with the ball. So, whether the ball just grazed a B player, or a B player deflected it such that the ball does not cross the NZ, the "blocking," itself changes nothing. It doesn't even count as "touching." If, thereafter, the ball remains behind the NZ, either team may catch/recover and advance the ball. However, if, after being blocked, the ball manages to cross the neutral zone (in flight, bounding, or rolling), then rules change. Team A are not eligible to touch the ball, unless it is touched by Team B. Regardless, the ball is dead when possessed by A, and Team A may not advance the ball.
Perhaps the toughest thing to explain to Team A would be why the result is a safety, even if the ball was muffed by Team B (no new impetus) beyond the NZ and traveled back into A's end zone, where a Team A player recovered it. The impetus is still from A's kick, so, the ball is dead behind their own goal line, and they are responsible for the ball being there. That's a safety. "But they touched it!" Yes, they did, Coach. Still a safety - 2 points for B. Get your kickoff team ready.
There is no such thing as "partially blocked," as far as the rules as concerned. It is either blocked (touched by B - any amount) or not. We don't really care. What we care about is what happens afterward.

I will expound on one other point. If B20 bats the kicked ball in A's end zone, and it travels into the field of play, and then, somehow, travels back into A's end zone where it goes OB or otherwise becomes dead still officially in  A's team possession, that would yield a touchback, because the impetus is now from B20's batting (since B20 caused the ball to travel from the field of play across the goal line). So, Team A would decline the penalty for B20's batting foul, and take the ball at the A-20.
If B20 does that, I would imagine his teammates (and coach) would want to kick his behind. Just fall on the frickin' ball for a TD, ya moron.
« Last Edit: December 03, 2021, 03:31:07 PM by ElvisLives »

Offline Whodatboy18

  • *
  • Posts: 6
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Don't blame me for your coaching
Re: Question on Illegal Batting
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2021, 08:01:45 AM »
Thank you both for the reply, that more than answers my questions. Unusual situations are a fun puzzle to figure out.