Sparty?
Ask The Ref?
- Thread starter Yappi
- Start date
StX at LaSalle last Friday night
Opening kickoff
Return man tries to field kickoff on a fly at the 7 yard line.
Ball goes through his hands (he touches it).
He scoops ball up at the 1 yard line (has possession)
At which point he slides into the end zone due to momentum and falls down in end zone.
Is this a safety or a touchback?
Opening kickoff
Return man tries to field kickoff on a fly at the 7 yard line.
Ball goes through his hands (he touches it).
He scoops ball up at the 1 yard line (has possession)
At which point he slides into the end zone due to momentum and falls down in end zone.
Is this a safety or a touchback?
AllSports12
Moderator
IF R's the official's ruled that R's original momentum took him into the end zone and the ball became dead there, then, by rule the ball will be placed at the spot (wherever inside the 5 yard line) R possessed the ball. In your play, the ball would be spotted at R's 1yd line.... 1st and 10. (if that's what was judged)
IF the officials ruled that R put the ball into the end zone on his own, then it is a safety.
Purely a judgment call.
This is covered under the exception to Rule 8-5-2 "It is a safety when:"
EXCEPTION: When a defensive player intercepts an opponent's forward pass; intercepts or recovers an opponent's fumble or backward pass; or an R player catches or recovers a scrimmage kick or free kick between his 5-yard line and the goal line, and his original momentum carries him into the end zone where the ball remains in the end zone and is declared dead in the end zone in his team's possession or it goes out of bounds in the end zone, the ball belongs to the team in possession at the spot where the pass or fumble was intercepted or recovered or the kick was caught or recovered.
Last edited:
Westsidepublic
Active member
He was standing between the 5 and 10 yard line when the kick hit him. He turned around picked up the ball at the 2 and carried it into the end zone where he fell. His original momentum was going the other way. The momentum to catch the original kick did not take him into the end zone. That would be the only way it was a touchback
The touch between the 5 and 10 is irrelevant. The status of the ball is still a kick. If the covering official believed the receivers momentum as he obtained possession caused him to go into the EZ and the ball becomes dead there, it is neither a safety nor a touchback. The ball is returned to the point of recovery. If the official believed he took the ball into the EZ after recovering and his momentum was not a factor, it would be a safety.
zebrastripes
Well-known member
I realize the question has already been answered, but I think it’s important to note that good officiating philosophy (per the Gold Book) would ask that this be ruled momentum rather than a safety, if there is doubt by the covering official.
Gold Book “If In Doubts”:
15. If in doubt, it is not a TD or a safety. (Rule 8)
Feel free to delete if this post is not appropriate.
Gold Book “If In Doubts”:
15. If in doubt, it is not a TD or a safety. (Rule 8)
Feel free to delete if this post is not appropriate.
AllSports12
Moderator
The question about the rule that addresses this play has been answered 3 times by 3 separate officials. All three agree what the rule is, what the potential rulings are, and note that it's solely the judgement of the covering officials.
Time to move on from this play.
Time to move on from this play.
AllSports12
Moderator
In tonight's NFL game, a PAT was kicked directly over the top of the upright and was ruled successful.
Under NFHS rules, this would have been ruled unsuccessful as the ball must pass completely inside the upright extended.
Been getting PM's and texts about this, so I thought I'd put it out there.
Under NFHS rules, this would have been ruled unsuccessful as the ball must pass completely inside the upright extended.
Been getting PM's and texts about this, so I thought I'd put it out there.
Captain_Cavman
Well-known member
Is their a "halo" rule in High School?
Do you have to give "room" for the receiving team on a punt?
Do you have to give "room" for the receiving team on a punt?
AllSports12
Moderator
No "Halo Rule" under NFHS Rules (and no longer in NCAA)
No K player shall obstruct R's path to the ball. If they do, then they are guilty of Kick Catch Interference.
Captain_Cavman
Well-known member
"Path to the ball" ???
If the the receiving player is NOT touched,
can the Kick Catch penalty be called?
AllSports12
Moderator
Sure....
There's nothing in the rule (I quoted it exactly) that says there has to be contact in order for KCI to occur. If K obstructs R's path to the ball, it is a foul.
Just like forward pass interference, it's purely a judgement call.
Captain_Cavman
Well-known member
Interesting.
So if a receiver has to run around a punting team's player to catch the punt, they could call KCI?
R gets "an unobstructed opportunity to catch the ball." Contact is not required. They should call KCI.
Lake catholic vs VASJ Sat night:
Lake reciever has feet and hips on the ground in endzone catches ball, but ball is not accroos the front plane of the goalline, official by the ball (within 5 yds of catch marks ball at 1/2 yd line) which is where the front of the ball was. The Backjudge comes over and rukles touchdown?? Assuming I am accurate with my details why woulod he have thought it was a score?
Lake reciever has feet and hips on the ground in endzone catches ball, but ball is not accroos the front plane of the goalline, official by the ball (within 5 yds of catch marks ball at 1/2 yd line) which is where the front of the ball was. The Backjudge comes over and rukles touchdown?? Assuming I am accurate with my details why woulod he have thought it was a score?
AllSports12
Moderator
Based on what you described, this is not a touchdown.
As to why the BJ did what you said he did..... you'll have to ask him. Maybe he screwed up, maybe the other official screwed up.
12penguins
Well-known member
Can you return a field goal attempt in ohio hs football?
In HS rules, a FG attempt is basically like a punt that can score 3 points. A missed FG attempt is treated like a punt.
So, yes, a FG attempt can be returned unless the kick crosses the goal line. At that point, it would be a touchback, same as if a punt crossed the goal line.
12penguins
Well-known member
thank you.
ICBM
Well-known member
Did the chains for 30 years. We were always instructed to lay the sticks down so nobody is confused as you indicate. On multiple occasions in different situations I spoke up to point out errors by the crew. Usually I was thanked. Once I was ejected for arguing a correctable error. Later it was acknowledged I was correct but apparently nobody on the officiating crew wanted to stand up to the crew boss. Such is life.
Has this rule changed? This exact scenario happened Friday. The QB was being sacked and threw the ball at last second. Initially ruled a fumble, then incomplete pass and after discussion they called grounding. I was saying that it wasn’t based on this rule and the QB was taught to throw it away if he was getting sacked.
Thanks in advance
AllSports12
Moderator
Nothing has changed.
Thank you, as predicted, there is a lot of confusion over this rule.
Pickeringtonsports
Well-known member
Is targeting a penalty in high school. I have seen at least 5 blatant helmet to helmet hits and none were called.
AllSports12
Moderator
Yes, targeting is a foul. That said, helmet to helmet contact is not in and of itself illegal.
Targeting is an act by any player who takes aim and initiates contact against an opponent above the shoulders with the helmet, forearm, hand, fist, elbow or shoulders.
What you saw may or may not have been targeting.
Pickeringtonsports
Well-known member
All would have resulted in an ejection in college. I understand that high school refs don’t have the benefit of replay. But over the last 4 years we’ve played ~60 games and not one targeting call.
Targeting in HS does not carry an automatic ejection, as it does for NCAA. That would have to be an additional judgment that the foul was flagrant. So even if the proper call was targeting in the games you saw, it would not necessarily result in an ejection.
We would need to see video to assess whether the foul was targeting, or flagrant.
AllSports12
Moderator
A philosophy that is taught by the OHSAA is....
This may play a part in what you have observed. At the same time, we cannot dismiss the fact that the emphasis put on this dangerous play since 2014 has had an effect. I can only remember two targeting fouls in that same timeframe. (120+ games)
Last edited:
CatDog
Active member
Kicking team lined up to kick off following a score. Receiving team is anticipating and onside kick and only has one man deep.
Ball is kicked approximately 20 yards in the air (not looking for hop, not squibbed). Return man runs up to catch it but does not signal fair catch. He muffs it. Kicking team scoops and runs the ball into the endzone.
Referees wave off the TD and place the ball at the spot of the muff. The refs inform the coach that you cannot advance an onside kick.
Ball is kicked approximately 20 yards in the air (not looking for hop, not squibbed). Return man runs up to catch it but does not signal fair catch. He muffs it. Kicking team scoops and runs the ball into the endzone.
Referees wave off the TD and place the ball at the spot of the muff. The refs inform the coach that you cannot advance an onside kick.
Correct