shield leaping

[zebra99]

Does anyone have a definitive citation or written authority that answers the question whether or not the ball has to be kicked in order for the shield leaping rule to apply?

[Rulesman]

Probably a good question to send to RR for a definitive answer. Every play situation I've seen only references Team A being in "punt" (I take that to be a scrimmage kick) formation. While you could dangerously read into it that the rule applies if A is lined up as such, there's not a word in these rulings that indicates the ball must be kicked.

[Atlanta Blue]

Given that it is a safety issue, I would think that it would be a foul whether there was a kick or not.

[Diablo]

For what it's worth ...
The new 9-1-11 says it's a foul if a defensive player leaps over an opponent (inside the tackle box) to block a punt.  A punt is a kick.  So, if the would-be kicker does not kick the ball, there is no punt; hence, leaping is not illegal. 
Not unequivocal, but a strong inference. 

[zebra99]

agree - and I believe leaping and landing does require an actual kick - 9-1- (old 9-1-2-q).  I can't find a citation on that one either.  The rule was added in 2005 and I went through all the NCAA bulletins since - could not find a play which helps  but my "notes" say there must be an actual FG or kicked TRY for leaping to come into play.

Both these rules have kick language where other rules simply say scrimmage kick formation so I guess we can assume when a rule mentions punt, kick, FG, etc. there has to be an actual kick.  ??

I am surprised that they didn't specifically state no kick is required -  as Atlanta stated these are safety rules .....

[Rulesman]

Sometimes rule changes have unintended consequences that aren't seen until we get to disect them. The easy fix here is for RR to post the clarification on Arbiter.

The Federation made changes this year, too, that weren't updated covered in other areas (among others, Catch/No Catch was not updated in the Case Book) and are going to cause heartburn until the corrections/clarifications come out.

[Atlanta Blue]

The Federation made changes this year, too, that weren't updated covered in other areas (among others, Catch/No Catch was not updated in the Case Book) and are going to cause heartburn until the corrections/clarifications come out.

It's worse than that in FED.  Unfortunately, the catch/no catch issued WAS covered in the FED case book, but it was done in conflict with the new rule.  The cases that talk about forward progress for a receiver that is carried OOB are listed as NEW cases, however there is no exception for carry puts in the actual rule.

[Atlanta Blue]

For what it's worth ...
The new 9-1-11 says it's a foul if a defensive player leaps over an opponent (inside the tackle box) to block a punt.  A punt is a kick.  So, if the would-be kicker does not kick the ball, there is no punt; hence, leaping is not illegal. 
Not unequivocal, but a strong inference.

I agree, that is the inference.  But if true, it is a poorly written rule. 

EXAMPLE:  Rusher leaps over the shield, punter sees the leaping rusher, so he steps to the side, and winds up getting tackled by another rusher.  The leaper is upended by the shield blockers, lands on the head of a blocker, injuring him, and he lands on his own neck and is also injured.  There was no punt, therefore, by the above inference, the leap is not a foul.
However, the leap was the reason there was no kick, and the leap was just as dangerous whether the ball was kicked or not.  If the purpose of the rule is to protect both the leapers and those blocking him, it should be a foul if A is a scrimmage kick FORMATION, whether an actual kick happens or not.  While a kicker isn't a kicker until he kicks the ball, a blocker is still a blocker even if there is no kick.

And it isn't an advantage issue.  A gains no advantage for B to be restricted from leaping even if there is no kick.  In fact, B is in BETTER position to defend a fake if he doesn't leap.  So it makes no logical sense to require a kick in order to restrict leaping.

[Rulesman]

Unfortunately, the catch/no catch issued WAS covered in the FED case book, but it was done in conflict with the new rule.

I never said it wasn't covered. I said it wasn't updated. The specific Case Book play I'm referring to is 3.4.3 SITUATION C which is word for word the same as in the 2011 book.

[Dakota Dan]

From the 2012 NCAA Redding Study Guide:
page 121

"Leaping and landing on another player is not a foul if he runs forward and
leaps at the neutral zone, after he crosses the neutral zone or if there is no kick."

This is talking about FG's; but, I figure the same is true with the shield too...

[Atlanta Blue]

From the 2012 NCAA Redding Study Guide:
page 121

"Leaping and landing on another player is not a foul if he runs forward and
leaps at the neutral zone, after he crosses the neutral zone or if there is no kick."

This is talking about FG's; but, I figure the same is true with the shield too...

I fully understand that may well be the proper interpretation, but it makes no sense.  The significant risk of leaping is the exact same to both the leaper and the blocker whether the kick takes place or not.  If it truly is a safety rule, the kick shouldn't matter.

[El Macman]

Forget logic. Logically, for safety, this would apply to any punt, field goal attempt, or pass. It only applies to punts. And, yes, there must be a kick. No kick, no foul. RR gave that ruling to an FBS coordinator in recent days. Perhaps it will show up in writing for the masses some day. But, for now, that's what we have.