blocked punt out of endzone

[TxGrayhat]

4th down ball at A's 5 the punt is blocked at the line never crosses the neutral zone the ball is rolling at the 3 when team B inadvertently kicks it out the back of the end zone. Ruling ?

[Hawkeye]

Safety, 2 points for Team B.

Team B's inadvertent kick does not add new impetus. The impetus for the ball going into Team A's endzone is the kick, therefore Team A is responsible for the ball becoming dead behind it's own goalline - Safety.

The block is a just a touch of the scrimmage kick and not a bat, even if the block was a bat it would not add new impetus either since at the time of the block, the ball hadn't touched the ground yet.

8-5-1-a, 8-7-1, 8-7-2-a, 2-11-5, 2-16-1-d

[GameWillTravel]

Tks

[British Ref]

Safety, 2 points for Team B.

Team B's inadvertent kick does not add new impetus. The impetus for the ball going into Team A's endzone is the kick, therefore Team A is responsible for the ball becoming dead behind it's own goalline - Safety.

The block is a just a touch of the scrimmage kick and not a bat, even if the block was a bat it would not add new impetus either since at the time of the block, the ball hadn't touched the ground yet.

8-5-1-a, 8-7-1, 8-7-2-a, 2-11-5, 2-16-1-d

If the Team B player bats the ball, surely 9-4-1-c (No player shall bat other loose balls forward in the field of play or in any direction if the ball is in the end zone.) comes in to play. Maybe it's the volleyball official in me, but, to me, there is a clear difference between a block of the kick and a bat.

[Kalle]

If the Team B player bats the ball, surely 9-4-1-c (No player shall bat other loose balls forward in the field of play or in any direction if the ball is in the end zone.) comes in to play. Maybe it's the volleyball official in me, but, to me, there is a clear difference between a block of the kick and a bat.

How do you see rule 2-11-5 to apply to a hand action that in common speak would be considered a "bat"? Do remember that words in the football rules context might not be the same as in common speak (consider the famous case of a "bat" of a legal forward pass by A88).

[British Ref]

How do you see rule 2-11-5 to apply to a hand action that in common speak would be considered a "bat"? Do remember that words in the football rules context might not be the same as in common speak (consider the famous case of a "bat" of a legal forward pass by A88).

Personally I'd differentiate between "ball playing player" and "player playing ball". With a block, the ball plays the player. With a bat, the player plays the ball.

It's very similar to the volleyball rule on blocking in the opponent's court space. A player is allowed to block in the opponent's court space, but if, in doing so, the player strikes the ball or redirects the ball using a prolonged contact, those are both faults.

[El Macman]

This ain't volleyball, or anything except football. By rule (2-11-5), any touching by a B player with the ball loose from a legal scrimmage kick in flight, within 3 yards of the NZ (6-3-1-b), is just blocking. There is no distinguishing between incidental touching or intentional touching, and no exception for batting. It is just blocking.

[British Ref]

This ain't volleyball, or anything except football. By rule (2-11-5), any touching by a B player with the ball loose from a legal scrimmage kick in flight, within 3 yards of the NZ (6-3-1-b), is just blocking. There is no distinguishing between incidental touching or intentional touching, and no exception for batting. It is just blocking.

If the kick goes high and short and is coming down around the neutral zone, and a Team B player attempts to catch it standing 2 yards downfield, and he muffs it back in to Team A's backfield, what have you got? Would you rule that a block of the kick by Team B?

Alternatively, the same kick is coming down around the neutral zone, and a Team B player stood two yards downfield, doesn't attempt to catch the ball, but takes a swing at it, connects and punches the ball well in to Team A's backfield. Still a block of the kick?

A block, by rule, requires the touching to be an "attempt to prevent the ball from advancing beyond the neutral zone". That, for me, means a more specific act than "any touching".

[bushman]

Look at 2-10-5 and 6-3-1-b

[Kalle]

If the kick goes high and short and is coming down around the neutral zone, and a Team B player attempts to catch it standing 2 yards downfield, and he muffs it back in to Team A's backfield, what have you got? Would you rule that a block of the kick by Team B?

This is not "to prevent the ball from advancing beyond the neutral zone", so it is not blocking a kick.

Alternatively, the same kick is coming down around the neutral zone, and a Team B player stood two yards downfield, doesn't attempt to catch the ball, but takes a swing at it, connects and punches the ball well in to Team A's backfield. Still a block of the kick?

This is to prevent it from crossing the NZ so yes, it is blocking a kick.

A block, by rule, requires the touching to be an "attempt to prevent the ball from advancing beyond the neutral zone". That, for me, means a more specific act than "any touching".

Yes, not every touching is blocking. For example the catch of a kick would not be blocking, even though it is also touching the kick (remember that touching always precedes possession).

But, any type of touching that is made with the intent of preventing the ball from crossing the NZ is blocking. It does not matter if the touch is made with the body, head, legs or arms, as long as it is intentional.