Author Topic: Whats your thoughts on this play?  (Read 8598 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Whats your thoughts on this play?
« on: July 12, 2013, 09:22:28 AM »
4th/18 for Team A from the Team B 48-yard line. A4's punt breaks the plane of Team B's goal line, and then A87 bats the ball backwards into the field of play. B44 muffs the ball on the Team B 2-yard line and A67 recovers on the Team B 6-yard line. During the kick, B82 blocks an opponent below the waist on the Team B 14-yard line.

We have been discussing this one in our chapter forum. It seems to have a contradiction with the rule 6-3-11 and the AR 6-3-11-III.
The rule states:
If a scrimmage kick untouched by Team B after crossing the neutral zone is batted in Team B’s end zone by a player of Team A, it is a violation for illegal touching (Rule 6-3-2). This is a special case of illegal touching: Team B’s privilege for this violation is not canceled by an accepted penalty. It is canceled by offsetting fouls (Rule 6-3-2-b). The spot of the violation is Team B’s 20-yard line, which is the postscrimmage kick spot for fouls by Team B (Rule 2-25-11).The B-20 may also be a penalty enforcementspot for fouls by Team A during the kick play (Rules 6-3-13 and 10-2-4) (A.R. 6-3-11-I-III and A.R 2-12-2-I).
The AR States:
III. Team A snaps at the 50-yard line and punts. The kick is untouched beyond the neutral zone when A88 reaches across Team B´s goal line and bats the ball back into the field of play. B22 muffs the ball at the B-2 and A43 recovers it at the B-6. While the ball is loose B77 holds A21 at the B-10.

RULING: Team A may cancel the illegal touching privilege by accepting the holding penalty, which is enforced at the previous spot with the down replayed. Postscrimmage kick rules do not apply to Team B´s foul since Team A is in legal possession of the ball when it is declared dead.

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Whats your thoughts on this play?
« Reply #1 on: July 12, 2013, 09:27:10 AM »
No contradiction.  The ball was touched by B beyond the NZ so 6-3-11 is not applicable

Offline Chiefump

  • *
  • Posts: 45
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-5
Re: Whats your thoughts on this play?
« Reply #2 on: July 12, 2013, 09:45:06 AM »
If this is the case and 6-3-11 is not applicable wouldn't you still have an illegal bat by Team A for batting a ball in the end zone?

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Whats your thoughts on this play?
« Reply #3 on: July 12, 2013, 11:27:40 AM »
No contradiction.  The ball was touched by B beyond the NZ so 6-3-11 is not applicable
Yes but after it was batted by Team A

Offline Wingmanbp

  • *
  • Posts: 267
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-7
Re: Whats your thoughts on this play?
« Reply #4 on: July 12, 2013, 11:31:04 AM »
Plus How can Team A be in legal possesion if they committed an illegal batting?

Offline TXMike

  • *
  • Posts: 8775
  • FAN REACTION: +229/-269
  • When you quit learning you quit living
Re: Whats your thoughts on this play?
« Reply #5 on: July 12, 2013, 11:51:10 AM »
Immaterial.  Where does it say it has to be touched before A?

Offline JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 3007
  • FAN REACTION: +115/-59
Re: Whats your thoughts on this play?
« Reply #6 on: July 12, 2013, 03:45:57 PM »
Team B touched the ball making the recovery by Team A legal.  The acceptance of a penalty causes the illegal touching to be ignored.  As Mike stated, 6-3-11 no longer comes into play since team B touched the ball.  What we are left with is "normal" illegal touching and not the "special case" of illegal touching and the foul by Team B.  Had team B not touched the ball, then team B would be able to envoke the "special case" of illegal touching.  The penalty would not wipe that out.