8-4-2-b-3

[NCAA-SJ]

I believe there is a huge mistake in this addition to 8-4-2.

How can a legal kick, which has crossed the NZ (2-16-7-b) be declared dead behind the NZ when the NZ no longer exists?  (2-17-1-c)  (AR 8-4-2-VII)

In the play where a blocked scrimmage kick is recovered by A, A can only advance when recovered behind the NZ.  But, when said kick, goes beyond the NZ, then rebounds back, then A can no longer advance because, for purposes, the kick is considered beyond the NZ. (AR 6-3-1-I)

But not so for an unsuccessful FG attempt from inside the 20yd. B cannot get the ball at the 20yd. 

I think they crossed the streams.  Complete contradiction.  Thoughts?

[Kalle]

I believe there is a huge mistake in this addition to 8-4-2.

How can a legal kick, which has crossed the NZ (2-16-7-b) be declared dead behind the NZ when the NZ no longer exists?  (2-17-1-c)  (AR 8-4-2-VII)

In the play where a blocked scrimmage kick is recovered by A, A can only advance when recovered behind the NZ.  But, when said kick, goes beyond the NZ, then rebounds back, then A can no longer advance because, for purposes, the kick is considered beyond the NZ. (AR 6-3-1-I)

But not so for an unsuccessful FG attempt from inside the 20yd. B cannot get the ball at the 20yd. 

I think they crossed the streams.  Complete contradiction.  Thoughts?

I don't see a contradiction. The rules makers don't want team B to get any special treatment if a field goal attempt fails to make it to the end zone.

[British Ref]

I do see a contradiction here, one which potentially penalises Team B for a good play.

The scenario: Team A have 4th and goal at B's 5 and line up to attempt a field goal. B90 touches the field goal attempt at the line of scrimmage, and
(i) deflects the path of the ball enough so that it goes past the upright.
(ii) deflects the ball such that it goes sideways, hits the ground at B's 3 and goes out of bounds at B's 2.
(iii) deflects the ball such that it goes sideways, hits the ground at B's 3, bounces at an angle and goes out of bounds at B's 7.

Under this rule as written, the outcomes will be:
(i) B's ball, 1st and 10 at the 20.
(ii) B's ball, 1st and 10 at the 20.
(iii) B's ball, 1st and 10 at the 7.

What is sufficiently different in (iii) to cost B 13 yards of field position?

[Kalle]

Well, considering that even before this season the following play "penalized" team B for a good play, I still don't see any real issue.

4/G B-5. FG attempt is blocked at the LOS and goes OOB at B-7. Team B's ball, 1/10 B-7.

[Hawkeye]

I agree with Kalle, I initially couldn't understand the rationale behind 8-4-2-b-3 and then I talked it out with another official and realized all that's happening here is making the ruling the same if the ball becomes dead behind the NZ regardless if the blocked punt happened to cross (land beyond) the NZ or not provided team B did not touch the ball while it was beyond the NZ.  Kalle's example where the ball belongs to team B at the B-7 is invoking rule 8-4-2-b-2 which has been there for a long time.

[NCAA-SJ]

I do not have an issue with what they are trying to accomplish, but the rule contradicts itself in how it's written.

A legal kick crosses the NZ (say 15yd).  At that point, per 2-17-1-c, the NZ "NO LONGER EXISTS".

So, if the ball rebounds backwards and A recovers it (say, at 18yd), they are not allowed to advance because the ball is effectively 'recovered by A BEYOND the NZ', no matter the yard line because, by rule, the NZ no longer exists and the recovery is deemed to be beyond the NZ because the kick has crossed it.

Now, if that kicked ball that has crossed the NZ is declared dead, they are telling us we have to put the NZ back into the play even though it no longer exists by rule.  By rule, this kick "cannot be declared dead behind the NZ" because there is no NZ for it to be behind.  You can't, by rule, put the genie back in the bottle...as we say.

That's my point.     

[Kalle]

A legal kick crosses the NZ (say 15yd).  At that point, per 2-17-1-c, the NZ "NO LONGER EXISTS".

This is just sloppy rules language, nothing new there, unfortunately.

[jg-me]

Guess it could be changed to read "behind A's scrimmage line".