»
Topic: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained
Replies: 95   Last Post: Jan 25, 2016, 8:53 AM by: clemtiger117
This topic has been archived - replies are not allowed.


[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
Replies: 95  

Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained

emoji_events [15]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:15 AM
 

First off, I know that Clemson fans aren't really wanting to argue this point and most actual Alabama and Clemson fans have remained very classy in handling the victory and defeat. However, the sports sites posting articles stating that the onside kick was definitely legal are incorrect because they do not reference the cited Exception 6-4-1 and its subsequent subsections APPROVED RULINGS (2, 12, 5 and 1) that apply to this conditional ruling. Please refute this if you think you it possible. And don't bother with the "OK technically you're right but it's never enforced like the 9-yard rule thing" because this play has indeed been flagged illegal in games before.


The onside kick was definitely illegal because although the AND/OR rule #2(ball breaks plane of and remains beyond team B's restraining line) was indeed met and everyone is pointing to it as validation of the play's legality all the while completely ignoring the fact that the rule #2 additionally SPECIFICALLY INCLUDES THE EXCEPTIONS LISTED - RULE 6-4-1 and its SUBSECTION APPROVED RULINGS (2, 12, 5 AND 1)


And now for the final and absolute record, RULE 6-4-1, SUBSECTION 5 STATES:


V. A Team A player beyond the neutral zone first touches or catches a

scrimmage kick that no receiver could have caught while it was in flight.

RULING: Illegal touching but not interference


For those that are really biased one way or the other and/or have trouble with reading comprehension and/or rules that contain multiple exceptions that reference subsections, what this all means is...

SINCE THE BALL DIDN'T TOUCH A RECEIVING TEAM PLAYER AND/OR THE GROUND WHICH MEANS NEITHER OF THE OTHER TWO ONSIDE KICK RULE CONDITIONS WERE MET(#1 or #3), THE PLAY SHOULD HAVE RESULTED IN A RE-KICK OR OPTION FOR THE RECEIVING TEAM TO TAKE THE BALL AT THE POINT OF THE ILLEGAL TOUCHING (but no, not a 15 yard penalty tacked on top of it).

ALSO, if it were deemed that the Clemson player had indeed been close enough to try to catch the ball even without signaling for a fair catch(which he may have been close enough), then RULE 6-4-1, SUBSECTION 1 WOULD HAVE APPLIED SINCE IT STATES:

I. A Team A player catches a free kick very near receiver B25, thus

preventing him from making the catch. RULING: Kick-catch

interference. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul.


And this means that Clemson would have gotten a 15 yard penalty tacked on from the point of the illegal touching. And yes, there is also another and different rule that explains it to be a penalty in the circumstance that a receiving player signals for a fair-catch too.


So, there you have it. That is official, the end of it and there is no more arguing the point. Some may gleefully assume it was karmic justice for them to be outdone in the end by an onside kick that changed the momentum of the game but the absolute and irrefutable truth of the matter is that this play was in fact ILLEGAL.


NOTE: The specific ruling for an onside kick references specific subsections that refer to the kick as both a free kick and a scrimmage kick, because it is BOTH. It is a free kick from behind the neutral zone and scrimmage kick once past it, so don't even bother playing the word game since both of these wordings are specifically cited in specific subsections for the onside kick rule.

And sorry for the caps, but apparently emphasis is needed for some that are wearing Crimson or Orange tinted glasses.

CASE CLOSED - or does anyone think they can possibly refute the aforementioned stated rules? Everyone that has claimed the play legal so far has chosen to completely ignore the EXCEPTION and its subsections ACCEPTED RULINGS. Dabo had every right to upset about the play.

link

I think I would need context to make a decision.

[3]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:32 AM
 

Basically you have cut and pasted a "rule" without giving access to the rest of the section. Also, how do they define "scrimmage kick?" Finally, the 15-yard penalty doesn't apply because I doubt they would find that the ball was "very near" any of our receivers. But what does "receiver B25" even mean?

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 4:52 PM
 

You can find all of the rules and referenced subsections here:
http://www.ncfafootball.com/resources/Rules/FR15.pdf

You can easily find the sections I referenced on your own, as they care clearly cited in the rule book. When you see these citations, simply press Ctrl-F and input a keyword that will take you to the relevant section and/or subsection of the rule book. Easy!

Hope that helps!

link

Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:18 PM
 

I apologize if the rules and subsection rules I referenced didn't make much sense in my OP. I just assumed people knew the 3 basic either/or rules for an onside kick that I was referring to since it has been discussed all over other sites already and I didn't want to make my wall of text even longer.

But for those that are unable to research and/or find the rules I am referring to and need a complete cut/paste, here it is:

First, here are rules for the touching and recovery of a free kick that other sites claim #2 on the list is what applied to the play in question and thus made the play legal.

Touching and Recovery of a Free Kick

ARTICLE 3. a. No Team A player may touch a free-kicked ball until after:

1. It touches a Team B player (Exception: Rules 6-1-4 and 6-5-1-b);

2. It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s restraining line
(Exception: Rule 6-4-1) (A.R. 2-12-5-I)
; or

3. It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond Team
B’s restraining line.

Thereafter, all players of Team A become eligible to touch, recover or catch
the kick.
b. Any other touching by Team A is illegal touching, a violation that, when the
ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team the privilege of taking the ball
at the spot of the violation.
c. If there is an accepted penalty for a live-ball foul by either team, or if there
are offsetting fouls, the illegal touching privilege is canceled (A.R. 6-1-3-I).
d. Illegal touching in Team A’s end zone is ignored.

However in claiming Rule #2 made the play legal, the problem is that no one bothered to acknowledge that Rule #2 has an Exception listed and cites 4 specific subsection "Approved Rulings" that apply to Rule #2, the specific wording being (Exception: Rule 6-4-1) (A.R. 2-12-5-I).

Once again, for your convenience, here are ALL of the Approved Rulings listed and the AR's that pertain to Rule #2 have been highlighted:

SECTION 4. Opportunity to Catch a Kick
Interference With Opportunity—ARTICLE 1
Approved Ruling 6-4-1

I. A Team A player catches a free kick very near receiver B25, thus
preventing him from making the catch. RULING: Kick-catch
interference. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul. <<< POSSIBLE DEPENDING ON CLOSEST CLEMSON PLAYER'S VICINITY BUT MORE LIKELY AR V. APPLIED IN THIS CASE >>>


II. A Team B player, about to catch a scrimmage kick, is tackled before
the ball arrives but catches the kick while he is falling. RULING:
Kick-catch interference. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul.
Disqualification of the Team A player if the contact is flagrant. If the
foul is between the goal lines, enforcement is from the spot of the foul
and Team B puts the ball in play by a snap; if behind Team B’s goal line,
award a touchback and penalize from the succeeding spot. The ruling
would be the same had the kick been muffed or fumbled. The ruling
is also the same on an unsuccessful field goal attempt since Team B
touched the ball beyond the neutral zone.


III. Beyond the neutral zone A1 is standing or running between a kick in
flight and B1, and (a) A1 is struck by the ball while B1 is in a position
to catch the ball; or (b) B1, in attempting to catch the ball, bumps into
A1. RULING: Kick-catch interference. Penalty—(a) and (b): 15 yards
at the spot of the foul.

IV. A player of Team B, attempting to catch a kick (no fair catch signal),
muffs the ball which is then touched by an opponent who was not
interfering with the opportunity of the receiver when he was in position
to make the catch. RULING: Not interference. In the absence of a fair
catch signal, protection against interference with the opportunity to catch
a kick ends when any player of Team B muffs the ball.

V. A Team A player beyond the neutral zone first touches or catches a
scrimmage kick that no receiver could have caught while it was in flight.
RULING: Illegal touching but not interference. <<< HELLO?! DING DING DING >>>


VI. B25 is standing at the B-35 in position to catch a punt. As the ball is
on its downward flight A88 runs by B25 very close to his side, causing
B25 to adjust his position before catching the ball. A88 does not make
contact and does not penetrate the one-yard area directly in front of
B25. RULING: Foul by A88, interference with the opportunity to catch
the kick. 15 yards, spot of the foul. Even though B25 catches the ball,
A88’s action causes him to move away from his original location and
thus interferes with his opportunity to make the catch.

VII. B10 signals for a fair catch, muffs the ball and then catches it. RULING:
If B10 has an opportunity to catch the kick after the muff, he must be
given an unimpeded opportunity to complete the catch. If B10 catches
the muffed kick, the ball is dead where he first touched it.

VIII. Fourth and 10 at the 50-yard line. B17 is at Team B’s 20-yard line and in
position to catch Team A’s high scrimmage kick. During the downward
flight of the ball, A37 contacts B17 viciously and flagrantly before he
touches the ball. A37 did not alter his speed or make any attempt to
elude B17. RULING: Team A flagrant personal foul, interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the
foul. A37 is disqualified

IX. Team A’s ball, fourth and 10 at the 50-yard line. Team A’s windblown
scrimmage kick is on its downward flight at Team B’s 30-yard line.
B18, starting at the 20-yard line, must detour around A92 at the 25-yard
line to make the catch at the 30-yard line. RULING: Foul by A92 for
interference with the opportunity to catch a kick. Penalty—15 yards
from the spot of the foul, which is the 25-yard line.

X. Punt receiver B44 is standing at his 30-yard line in position to catch the
kick. Defender A11 races down the field to cover the punt and reaches
a point about a foot directly in front of B44 as the ball descends. B44
makes the catch without having to adjust his position or manner of
catching the ball because of the presence of A11, who does not pull back
to give B44 more room. RULING: Foul for kick-catch interference.
A11 entered the one-yard area directly in front of receiver B44. 15-yard
penalty.

XI. Punt receiver B22 is at the B-30 awaiting the punt as it makes its
downward flight and his teammate B88 is three yards in front of him
at the B-33. Down field to cover the kick, A44 legally blocks B88 into
B22 just as the ball reaches him. The ball hits B22 in the shoulder and
bounces away. Team A recovers at the B-25. RULING: Team A’s ball,
first and 10 at the B-25. This is not kick-catch interference. The action
by A44 is against B88 who is not in position to catch the kick, and not
against B22. Thus A44 is not deemed to have interfered with B22’s
opportunity to catch the ball. B22’s touching of the ball allows Team A
to recover legally.

XII. Fourth and five at the A-30. Punt receiver B22 is in position to catch the
kick at the B-30. He does not signal. A88 is within a yard of B22, at his
side, but does not make contact with B22 when he catches the kick at the
B-30. B22 is tackled at the B-32. A88’s presence does not cause B22 to
make any adjustment to his position or his manner of catching the ball.
RULING: Legal play; no kick-catch interference. A88 is closer than
one yard to B22 but is not directly in front of him. He does not affect
B22’s opportunity to catch the ball. First and 10 for Team B at the B-32.


XIII. B44 is in position to catch a punt at the B-25. While the ball is still very
high in the air and well before it comes close to B44, A88 runs directly
in front of B44 within a yard but is not near him when the ball arrives.
B44 catches the punt and is tackled. RULING: No foul. Although A88
penetrates the one-yard region directly in front of the receiver, this is so
early in the action that there is no interference with B44’s opportunity to
catch the kick.

So, there you have it, no selective c/p'ing on my part. As you can also see, the Rule #2 that cites 4 different applicable AR exceptions include one AR that uses the word "free kick" and another AR that uses the word "scrimmage kick" because it is both due to the nature of the play. A traditional kickoff is a free kick. An onside kick becomes a scrimmage kick once it passes the neutral zone.

Finally, I'm assuming almost ALL of you have played football with friends in the yard before and have kicked a ball off of a tee. Those that have will already know that it is MUCH easier to lob a ball off the tee into the air(basically a short pass with your foot) than kick it into the ground hard enough and just right to create the bounce necessary to both go beyond 10 yards and be recoverable by the kicking team. So why do you think everyone else in the history of onside kicks tries to kick it off the ground then? For the excitement of the added challenge? No, they do it because it is the easiest method to making the ball legally recoverable by the kicking team.

And lastly, I simply wanted to discuss the onside kick in general because it is becoming an unnecessary controversial play that is officiated differently almost every time and becoming more often than not a play that makes or breaks games. No matter what you think about it, the rules need to be simplified, clarified and most importantly KNOWN and officiated consistently going forward.

But of course there will always be the "get over it" "karma" "want some cheese with your whine" crowd that tries to derail the intent of this thread. And hey, to those people, I say, maybe you're right. Why even bother with getting things right?

Why even have a rule book so long as your team ends with more points on the scoreboard? Why give a s#$t about the blatant clock runoff at the end of the 1st half that any respected coach with a legacy would have gotten his timeout back on and the clock adjusted for the official to restart the game clock after the ball was set? Do you really think coaching legends like Saban, Miles, Meyer, Spurrier, Holtz etc wouldn't have had the clock adjusted AND their time out restored? If so, you're delusional.

These things matter not because a single mistake here or there cost a team the entire game, but because they are cumulative. And cumulative events that lead to points scored or potentially lost in a game that matters this much are devastating to the mindset/mojo/whatever you want to call it to a group of 19-20 yo kids playing on the biggest stage of their lives.

So, I appreciate the class and graciousness of both Alabama's fans and Clemson's fans that are congratulating each other on a hard fought game and saying "get over it" when discussions like this are brought to light. But in all honesty, I think you are doing your team and your coach a disservice when you don't have their backs on issues like this when Clemson will most likely never have the opportunity for everything needed to fall into place again.

PS: The rule book can be found here for those that are STILL questioning where I copied and pasted these sections from:
http://www.ncfafootball.com/resources/Rules/FR15.pdf

link

Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:28 PM
 

"A Team A player catches a free kick very near receiver B25, thus
preventing him from making the catch. RULING: Kick-catch
interference. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul. <<< POSSIBLE DEPENDING ON CLOSEST CLEMSON PLAYER'S VICINITY BUT MORE LIKELY AR V. APPLIED IN THIS CASE >>>"

No one was close does not apply.

"A Team B player, about to catch a scrimmage kick, is tackled before
the ball arrives but catches the kick while he is falling. RULING:
Kick-catch interference. Penalty—15 yards from the spot of the foul.
Disqualification of the Team A player if the contact is flagrant. If the
foul is between the goal lines, enforcement is from the spot of the foul
and Team B puts the ball in play by a snap; if behind Team B’s goal line,
award a touchback and penalize from the succeeding spot. The ruling
would be the same had the kick been muffed or fumbled. The ruling
is also the same on an unsuccessful field goal attempt since Team B
touched the ball beyond the neutral zone."

Not sure why you bolded this one, it does not apply.

"A Team A player beyond the neutral zone first touches or catches a
scrimmage kick that no receiver could have caught while it was in flight.
RULING: Illegal touching but not interference. <<< HELLO?! DING DING DING >>>"

No. See the thing with using words is that they have meaning, and when strung together they form a sentence. The words in a sentence, including punctuation are very important. That's why it's one thing to say a Panda eats shoots and leaves, and another to say a Pamda eats, shoots, and leaves. Here, there is an important modifier, being "scrimmage kick." An onside kick is a free kick, not a scrimmage kick. This exception does not apply. I've noticed that you have continued to ignore this, but maybe this will help you not look like a whiny moron, or just an idiot. Sagan made a great call, and the Alabama players executed it perfectly. No shame in making a team make a perfect play to beat you.

link

Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:56 PM
 

As I've explained to others, the use of the words 'scrimmage kick' does not invalidate the exception because:

AR V. is specifically cited as one of 4 AR exceptions(out of 13) that directly apply to the specific Onside Kick Rules(#2 in this case). It would not have been listed as an exception if it didn't apply. If including the words scrimmage kick completely invalidated the exception, there would be absolutely no reason to list it as an exception in the first place.

The spirit of the rule as a whole is what is relevant and the use of the word scrimmage kick does not negate the exception. Also, a scrimmage is a confused struggle or fight. If you don't understand that that is indeed the very essence of an onside kick once it passes the neutral zone, then you are clearly delusional and attempting to completely invalidate the inclusion of a specifically listed exception based on a single word.

Now, I'll ask you what I've asked the others that keep verbally vomiting out the same excuse as you. If AR V. doesn't apply to Rule #2, then why would they specifically list it as an exception to Onside Kick Rule #2? I'll be waiting on your answer as well.

Oh and here's a second question for you, if lobbing the ball off a tee into the air for a kicking team player to catch is legal, then why do all other teams seem to enjoy the extra challenge of kicking it into the ground with just the right strength, angle and velocity to even attempt having a chance at a legal recovery? I can answer this one for you...because it gives them the best chance of legally recovering the ball. Not to mention the onside lob has been flagged many times before and I think your kicker just got a break for being Polish ;)

Take up your verbiage issues with the authors of the 2015 NCAA Football Rule Book, not me.

This intent of this post was to discuss this specific play, but everyone wants to make this an emotional issue. So, fine, I'll bite. Congrats, enjoy your win. Your team was outplayed on both sides of the ball, but the only thing that counts in a ONE game series is the scoreboard. Do enjoy your National Championship as the 2nd best team in the country :) Because your team is a good one.

link

Yubyub is correct


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:07 PM
 

Not only is he correct from his excellent research, I also agree with his interpretations and understanding of the rules.

But more importantly, I feel better if he's right! ;)

Go Tiger!

2021 orange level member link

Re: Yubyub is correct

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:35 PM
 

Yubyub is not correct and neither are you. How long have you been watching football. A kickoff is anyone's ball after 10 yds. I thought everyone knew that. You just can't interfere with a player trying to catch it. We didn't have anyone in that zip code. No interference. Their ball. Best onside kick ever. They won. Get over it. If this was such an egregious error don't you think the ncaa would have said something by now. Like we're sorry Duke we were wrong but Miami still wins. You haven't heard anything because it was a PERFECTLY legal play and I hate to say it. BEAUTIFUL. Notice the all caps

link

Re: Yubyub is correct


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:35 PM
 

> Yubyub is not correct and neither are you. How long
> have you been watching football. A kickoff is
> anyone's ball after 10 yds. I thought everyone knew
> that. You just can't interfere with a player trying
> to catch it. We didn't have anyone in that zip code.
> No interference. Their ball. Best onside kick ever.
> They won. Get over it. If this was such an egregious
> error don't you think the ncaa would have said
> something by now. Like we're sorry Duke we were wrong
> but Miami still wins. You haven't heard anything
> because it was a PERFECTLY legal play and I hate to
> say it. BEAUTIFUL. Notice the all caps

I think you missed his wonky face emoji

link

Re: Yubyub is correct


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 1:39 AM
 

Once again, someone responding that didn't read either the OP or the HUGE full cut/paste of all relevant rules and the subsection approved rulings that I posted after being accused of selective c/p'ing.

If you had read what I posted, you wouldn't be arguing against catch interference as I didn't even mention that in my post. The illegality of the play had nothing to do with catch interference and everything to do with illegal touching. The Onside Kick Rule #2 > Subsection 6-4-1 > Approved Ruling V. in specific explains why it was illegal touching and it doesn't depend on a receiving team player being anywhere in the vicinity of the ball at all in any way.

Once again, Approved Ruling V. simply states:
A Team A player beyond the neutral zone first touches or catches a
scrimmage kick that no receiver could have caught while it was in flight.

RULING: Illegal touching but not interference

In this instance, the receiving team takes possession of the ball at the point of the illegal touching infraction. This is why every team in history that knows onside kick rules kicks the ball off the ground hoping for a big hop that goes past 10 yards which is the easiest way to make a potential recovery legal. You can't simply lob a pass from the tee off of your foot to your own team because it is illegal touching.

Debate what a scrimmage kick and/or free kick is and whether an onside kick is technically both until the cows come home if you want, but the bottom line is the specific section of rules that deals with an onside kick directly cites Approved Ruling V. among 3 other AR's as exceptions that make the play illegal. If it makes you feel any better though, this is the least egregious of the potential infractions and only results in the receiving team taking possession of the ball at the site of the illegal touching, unlike the other 3 potentially applicable Approved Rulings which would have also added on a 15 yard penalty.

The onside kick was perfectly fine and very clever, but catching this lob kick in flight prior to it hitting the ground or a receiving team player was illegal touching, making the play as a wholeILLEGAL.

I don't even understand why this is making everyone so upset. I've never claimed that this is the sole reason that Clemson lost.

link

Re: Yubyub is correct


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 6:29 AM
 

I can't believe you are doubling down. Now I am hoping for the sake of my alma mater that you are not a graduate as well. You aren't using all the words in the sentence. Your level of reading comprehension is very shallow. I'm just trying to help you not look so silly here. Please, remember, that you need to read the whole thing. I've already addressed your hot take in another post about why would they put that exception there, it is because those exceptions are used in other places in the rule book, your whole argument falls apart when the exceptions specifically list scenarios regarding punts. You have yet to acknowledge that there is a difference between a free kick and a scrimmage kick, but there is.

But if you must, please read the whole rule book, not just a section. Read section 4 - opportunity to catch a kick which is on page 68 and 69. I'll copy and paste it below.

SECTION 4. Opportunity To Catch a Kick Interference With Opportunity
ARTICLE 1� a� A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A�R� 6-3-1-III, A�R� 6-4-1-V, VI and IX)�
b� It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him� When in question it is a foul�(A�R� 6-4-1-X-XIII)
c� This protection ends when the kick touches the ground (Exception:
Free kick, par� f below), when any player of Team B muffs or touches a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team

B muffs or touches a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Exception: Rule 6-5-1-b) (A�R� 6-4-1-IV)�
d� If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked by an opponent, it is not a foul�
e� It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A�R� 6-4-1-II, III, and VIII)� When in question, it is an interference foul�
f� During a free kick a player of the receiving team in position to receive the ball has the same kick-catch and fair-catch protection whether the ball is kicked directly off the tee or is immediately driven to the ground, strikes the ground once and goes into the air in the manner of the ball kicked directly off the tee�
g� Contact by Team A involving a targeting foul (Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4) or other personal foul that interferes with the receiver’s opportunity to catch a kick may be ruled either as interference or as a targeting or personal foul� The 15-yard penalty is enforced at the spot where the dead ball belongs to Team B or at the spot of the foul, at the option of Team B�
PENALTY [a-g]—For foul between the goal lines: Receiving team’s ball, first down, 15 yards beyond the spot of the foul for an interference foul [S33]. For foul behind the goal line: Award a touchback and penalize from the succeeding spot. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified [S47].

link

Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:22 PM
 

Now you're just being intentionally dense, the exception that you wish to hang a hat on applies only to scrimmage kicks. An onside kick is not a scrimmage kick. The discussion is over.

I'm not trying to pull a card here, but these rules are drafted by lawyers, and their interpretations follow the established rules of statutory interpretation. That's why you see so many attorneys working high up in the leagues. As an attorney, an attorney that does a lot of regulatory and statutory interpretation work, I'm doing my best to try to educate you on this matter, but you don't want to listen.

Maybe I can map it out Ina simple logic chart for you.

The rule says that once the ball passes the neutral zone and stays there, it is a live ball, UNLESS: the kicking team player interferes with a receiving player when the receiving player is making a play on the ball, OR, in the instance of a scrimmage kick, the ball does not either hit the ground or another player.

So IF the ball goes past the neutral zone, AND a player on the kicking team receives it, the play is illegal IF AND ONLY IF the receiving team is making a play on the ball, OR the kick is a scrimmage kick.

Here it is TRUE that the ball is past the neutral zone, it is TRUE that the kicking team receive it. It is FALSE that the receiving team made a play on the ball and it is FALSE that the play was a scrimmage kick.
So what we have is (A AND B) IFF (C or D).

T and T = T
F or F = F
T iff F = F

There is no other way to describe it to you being saying that your discussion is pointless because you refuse to admit there is a difference between a scrimmage kick and an onside kick. I understand what you are trying to say, but there is no discussing this or any discussion on this, there is only black and white. The refs got this one right.

link

Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 2:39 AM
 

Ok, to answer this yet again...(at least read my comparison of the AR's if you skip everything else)

Why is AR V. listed as an exception to the Onside Kick Rule #2 if it doesn't apply and is meaningless? I will also wait for your answer to this question.

Some of the AR exceptions cited by the Onside Kick Rule #2 reference it as a 'free kick' and others reference it as a 'scrimmage kick.'

Now what do you think is more likely? That they came to a consensus that the scenarios described as exceptions in these four Approved Rulings conveyed the spirit of the four exceptions they intended to apply to Onside Kick Rule #2 in spite of the altered verbiage? Or that they overlooked or interpreted differently one word which did not change the overall meaning and spirit of the given AR's in their entirety but yet would invalidate one AR entirely according to you(even though they specifically chose to cite it as an exception)?

And finally, the three primary differences between AR's 1, 2 and 5 are:

AR 1 - Receiving team player in vicinity but kicking team player prevents him from catching ball or kicking team catches it with receiving team player nearby. Result: Kick-catch Interference and 15 yard penalty

AR 2 - Receiving team player in vicinity that is tackled or hit by kicking team player while attempting to catch the ball. Result: Kick-catch Interference and 15 yard penalty and possible ejection depending on flagrancy

AR 5 - Receiving team player NOT in vicinity and kicking team player catches ball past the neutral zone that no receiving team player could have caught while it is in flight. Result: Illegal Touching - no penalty yards but receiving team is given the ball at the spot of foul.

So, as you can see, these 3 AR's are very similar in intent and clearly relate to each other. The only difference between them being whether there is:
1) no receiving team player in the vicinity with the ball in flight and no possibility of a receiving team player catching it
2) a receiving team player in the vicinity prevented from attempting the catch but no direct physical contact
3) a receiving team player in the vicinity prevented from attempting the catch by direct physical contact

These AR's are directly related to the potential events of an onside kick and the intent of the Rule Book is very clear. There is a specific progression of potential events that make it very clear why these specific Approved Rulings are cited exceptions to Rule #2. But continue to believe in your SCRABBLE reasoning if it makes you feel better about it.

And again, if the play had been correctly officiated, it would have been flagged as Illegal Touching and Clemson would have received the ball at the spot of the foul.

link

Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 6:32 AM
 

I can't believe you are doubling down. Now I am hoping for the sake of my alma mater that you are not a graduate as well. You aren't using all the words in the sentence. Your level of reading comprehension is very shallow. I'm just trying to help you not look so silly here. Please, remember, that you need to read the whole thing. I've already addressed your hot take in another post about why would they put that exception there, it is because those exceptions are used in other places in the rule book, your whole argument falls apart when the exceptions specifically list scenarios regarding punts. You have yet to acknowledge that there is a difference between a free kick and a scrimmage kick, but there is.

But if you must, please read the whole rule book, not just a section. Read section 4 - opportunity to catch a kick which is on page 68 and 69. I'll copy and paste it below.

SECTION 4. Opportunity To Catch a Kick Interference With Opportunity
ARTICLE 1� a� A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A�R� 6-3-1-III, A�R� 6-4-1-V, VI and IX)�
b� It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him� When in question it is a foul�(A�R� 6-4-1-X-XIII)
c� This protection ends when the kick touches the ground (Exception:
Free kick, par� f below), when any player of Team B muffs or touches a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team

B muffs or touches a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Exception: Rule 6-5-1-b) (A�R� 6-4-1-IV)�
d� If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked by an opponent, it is not a foul�
e� It is an interference foul if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver before, or simultaneous to, his first touching the ball (A�R� 6-4-1-II, III, and VIII)� When in question, it is an interference foul�
f� During a free kick a player of the receiving team in position to receive the ball has the same kick-catch and fair-catch protection whether the ball is kicked directly off the tee or is immediately driven to the ground, strikes the ground once and goes into the air in the manner of the ball kicked directly off the tee�
g� Contact by Team A involving a targeting foul (Rules 9-1-3 and 9-1-4) or other personal foul that interferes with the receiver’s opportunity to catch a kick may be ruled either as interference or as a targeting or personal foul� The 15-yard penalty is enforced at the spot where the dead ball belongs to Team B or at the spot of the foul, at the option of Team B�
PENALTY [a-g]—For foul between the goal lines: Receiving team’s ball, first down, 15 yards beyond the spot of the foul for an interference foul [S33]. For foul behind the goal line: Award a touchback and penalize from the succeeding spot. Flagrant offenders shall be disqualified [S47].

link

Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:26 PM
 

Also, one of your contentions is hat he exceptions are for the "onside kick rule," which is also incorrect, as that section is cited in other parts of the rule book. Heck, the exceptions he selves specifically mention punts as well. When a rule (or statute) points to another source for the exceptions, the exceptions don't blindly apply, ye only apply to the scenarios in which the exceptions describe.

link

Re: I think I would need context to make a decision.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:39 PM
 

Oh, and to the it's easier to pop it up off the tee thing....

Yes it is, but most of the time coaches will protect a little against this and spread out their first line of defenders and tell them not to turn and run to block until the ball is kicked. Saban and his coaches said they noticed kearse played near the hash marks rather than the sideline, and turned to run back as soon as the kicker started running to the ball. It's a weird hiccup that most of the time Kearse could probably recover from due to his physical talents, but you aren't going to out-talent Bama. Just a small oversight and a reason why Saban is one of the best all-time at what he does.

link

The exception does not apply.

emoji_events [5]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:45 AM
 

A kickoff is a "free kick", not a "scrimmage kick". This exception applies only to a scrimmage kick.

V. A Team A player beyond the neutral zone first touches or catches a

scrimmage kick that no receiver could have caught while it was in flight.

RULING: Illegal touching but not interference


2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Wait, are you implying that the professional refs that were

[3]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:54 AM
 

chosen to officiate the national championship game know more about the rules than a random Tiger Board(s) poster who joined 7 years ago but made his first post today?

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Sorry I was signed in with the wrong acct***

[2]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:56 AM
 



link

Re: Sorry I was signed in with the wrong acct

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:06 AM
 

.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Re: Wait, are you implying that the professional refs that were


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 4:57 PM
 

I didn't imply that, no. But apparently, that is the case.

link

Welp, that argument didn't last long. LOL***

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:03 AM
 



link

Re: The exception does not apply.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 4:56 PM
 

If you had read my entire OP, you would know that two different subsections specifically cited from the same onside kick rule reference the kick as both a free kick and a scrimmage kick.

It is a free kick from behind the neutral zone and becomes a scrimmage kick past the neutral zone. That's not hard to understand, but I understand your initial confusion, which is why I preemptively responded to that expected argument already near the end of my OP.

link

Re: The exception does not apply.

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 11:02 PM
 

a. A scrimmage kick is a punt, drop kick, or field goal place kick. It is a legal kick if it is made by Team A in or behind the neutral zone during a scrimmage down before team possession changes.

b. A scrimmage kick has crossed the neutral zone when it touches the ground, a player, an official or anything beyond the neutral zone (Exception: Rule 6-3-1-b)

c. A scrimmage kick made when the kicker’s entire body is beyond the neutral zone is an illegal kick and a live-ball foul that causes the ball to become dead.


A free kick is any kick off of a tee. At no time can a free kick become a scrimmage kick

link

They say a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.....


Posted: Jan 15, 2016, 9:38 AM
 

...you are down right scary.

link

you are correct...


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:12 PM
 

and what some are trying to say is #1 of the rules is referring to if the ball does not travel the 10 yds. Unless a fair catch is called, once the ball travels 10 yds...it is anyone's ball. Not sure why people can not understand that.

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:47 AM
 

Game is over-we lost because our special teams failed us again and we gave up 24 points in the 4th quarter. Nothing else matters. Bama beat us, great game, but we didn't do what it takes to win.

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 5:12 PM
 

Again, my post wasn't an editorial. I didn't claim that to be the reason that we lost or even discuss the game in such a nature at all in the OP. I was simply stating that the onside kick was indeed illegal according to the official rule book.

But if you do want my opinion, yes I think we made a ton of mistakes and the potential of one miscalled play causing us to lose a game where we outplayed the other team on both sides of the ball(outside of blown coverage/individual efforts) should have never been a possibility.

Having said that, I also think Coach Saban chose to take that chance with the onside kick because he knew that Deshawn Watson was nearly unstoppable at that point in the game. As Saban himself said, they needed to "steal a possession." I don't disagree with him.

Again, my opinion, but I personally think that Alabama fans were so thankful to have ended up with the extra possession that resulted from that play and so happy to run the clock out on us.

So yes, once again, as we did all year, we completely outplayed an opponent but gave away enough ridiculous points to still lose.

So once again, stating this as my OPINION, I do not believe that they would have won the game if they hadn't broken our back with that onside(illegal) kick as Deshawn would have simply crammed it down their throats yet again.

This post should highlight the difference between a statement of facts and an editorial/opinion for you :)

link

If Clemson didn't have two blown coverages this wouldn't


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:53 AM
 

have mattered. There were 150+ plays during the game. This one may have changed momentum but that doesn't mean another single play couldn't have swung it back.

link

Nice use of capital letters, but you're very wrong.

[2]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:09 AM
 

There is no "onside kick" section in the rules. There is a section about kicks. It has rules about free kicks and rules about scrimmage kicks. The exception you posted is for SCRIMMAGE KICKS (all caps!). Essentially, it's a rule for punts.

link

An onside kick is never a scrimmage kick.

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:15 AM
 

The rulebook specifically states that a scrimmage kick is "a punt, drop kick, or field goal place kick".

In no universe is the play in question a scrimmage kick.

link

Easy way to think: scrimmage kicks happen on downs


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:25 AM
 

If the kick doesn't happen on a down, it is not a scrimmage kick. If Alabama could attempt an onside kick on 3rd and 3, it would be a scrimmage kick. :)

link

If the ball is snapped, it's a scrimmage kick.

[2]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:30 AM
 

If there is no snap, it's a free kick.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


That too.***

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:31 AM
 



link

Re: That too.***


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:55 AM
 

Hopefully yubyub comes back to this thread and keeps arguing, that would be fun.

2021 orange level memberbadge-donor-10yr.jpg link

"IDIOT POSTER OF THE MONTH SO FAR...GWP-- You have won IPM Award for your failure to completely comprehend a clear post & then choose to attack someone who points out your ignorance. While you are not yet in the same No Class Catagory as deRoberts, ClemTiger117 & Tigerdug23, you are getting closer to the Sewer Dwellers." - coachmac


Re: If the ball is snapped, it's a scrimmage kick.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:43 PM
 

Again, AR V. is cited specifically as an exception for Rule #2 of an onside kick. If the simple use of the words 'scrimmage kick' invalidated this exception, it would not have been included.

For informational purposes, there are in total 13 AR's that detail the possibilities of interference with the opportunity to make a catch and only 4 of them are specifically cited as exceptions by the onside kick rules. A variety of words are used in the 9 AR's that don't apply and similarly a variety of words are used in the 4 AR's that do apply. For the last time, AR V. would not have been a cited exception if it did not apply.

The lob kick and catch was illegal. If it weren't, everyone would try doing that rather than kicking the ball off the ground, as it's much easier to lob a ball off a tee into the air with your foot.

link

The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:23 PM
 

Otherwise why would they EVEN TALK ABOUT THE GROUND in Rule #3 of an onside kick:

2. It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s restraining line
(Exception: Rule 6-4-1) (A.R. 2-12-5-I); or
3. It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond Team
B’s restraining line.

And a lob kick may be easier to execute but it's only effective if the receiving team has an area vacated along the front line (as ours was), which is usually not the case particularly when the receiving team is expecting it.

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 7:51 AM
 

> Otherwise why would they EVEN TALK ABOUT THE GROUND
> in Rule #3 of an onside kick:
>
> 2. It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s
> restraining line
> (Exception: Rule 6-4-1) (A.R. 2-12-5-I); or
> 3. It touches any player, the ground, an official or
> anything beyond Team
> B’s restraining line.
>
> And a lob kick may be easier to execute but it's only
> effective if the receiving team has an area vacated
> along the front line (as ours was), which is usually
> not the case particularly when the receiving team is
> expecting it.

Because section 3 covers the instance where a ball lands beyond 10 yards but bounces backwards to within 10 yards.

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 9:35 AM
 

If 6-4-1 V applied to punts it would be illegal for the kicking team to catch or touch a punt before it hit the ground. Didn't Alabama catch a punt inside the 5 to down it? Also why would it refer to the neutral zone on a punt?

2021 white level member link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 10:19 AM
 

> If 6-4-1 V applied to punts it would be illegal for
> the kicking team to catch or touch a punt before it
> hit the ground. Didn't Alabama catch a punt inside
> the 5 to down it? Also why would it refer to the
> neutral zone on a punt?

Page 64 of rule book. An illegal touching gives the receiving team possession of the ball where the touching occurred. The neutral zone is referenced on the punt because it is a "scrimmage kick," and as such, there are different rules about advancing a kicked ball based on where the kicking team has picked up the ball.

When Bama caught the ball inside the 5, it was an illegal touching and Clemson ball at the spot.

Touching and Recovery of a Free Kick
ARTICLE 3� a� No Team A player may touch a free-kicked ball until after:
1� It touches a Team B player (Exception: Rules 6-1-4 and 6-5-1-b);
2� It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s restraining line (Exception: Rule 6-4-1) (A�R� 2-12-5-I); or
3� It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond Team B’s restraining line�
Thereafter, all players of Team A become eligible to touch, recover or catch the kick�
b� Any other touching by Team A is illegal touching, a violation that, when the ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team the privilege of taking the ball at the spot of the violation�

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 10:33 AM
 

I was thinking neutral zone as 10 yd not line of scrimage. But I still don't see why Exception V is cited under On Sides Kick.

Illegal Touching on punts does make sense since you bave the option of where it is touched or downed. Back in the dark ages in a Freshman game, SC player jumped up to knock down a punt at about the 10 and their players started walking off the field. Clemson player waited and picked up the ball anf ran it for a TD.

2021 white level member link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 10:48 AM
 

The "exceptions" are cited as "illegal touching" scenarios that happen on all types of kicks. The exceptions are cited in the "free kicks" section as well as the "scrimmage kick" section of the rule book and only apply to the idea of an illegal touching. In the event of a free kick, once the ball goes 10 yards and a player on the receiving team is not there to make a play on the ball, it is a free ball. In the event of a scrimmage kick such as a field goal or a punt, if the kicking team catches the ball, it is an illegal touching and the penalty is the receiving teams ball at the spot of the catch.

Here's the difference....a punt, field goal, or drop kick are "scrimmage kicks" (same with kicks after a safety, which can only be a punt or drop kick, as per the rules) and a kick-off is a "free kick." The exceptions are cited in other sections of the rule book, and the exceptions only apply to illegal touching. On a free kick, the ball is "free" meaning anyone can get it. On a scrimmage kick, the kicking team is relenquishing possession of the ball, and the question is where does the ball get placed once possession has been relinquished.

So when the free kicks section points to another section for exceptions, the exceptions apply, so long as the scenarios described in the exceptions match the play. Any scenario that says "free kick" only applies to free kicks. Any scenario that says "scrimmage kick" only applies to scrimmage kicks. Any scenario that says "kick," "any kick," or "all kicks" applies to both scrimmage and free kicks.

Here, the exception which seems to help Clemson refers to "scrimmage kicks," and the issue is that the play was not a scrimmage kick, but a free kick.

I can't believe I had to type out so many words to describe such a simple concept. Seriously, this is basic reading comprehension stuff.

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 10:57 AM
 

> I was thinking neutral zone as 10 yd not line of
> scrimage. But I still don't see why Exception V is
> cited under On Sides Kick.
>
> Illegal Touching on punts does make sense since you
> bave the option of where it is touched or downed.
> Back in the dark ages in a Freshman game, SC player
> r jumped up to knock down a punt at about the 10 and
> their players started walking off the field. Clemson
> player waited and picked up the ball anf ran it for a
> TD.

Now we are getting way off topic, but, it does make sense. If the ball bounces off the kicking team's gunner and right into the hands of the receiving team's fastest player, the receiving team's player can return the punt for a touchdown. But if the ball goes off the kicking team's player and then continues u too it stops, the ball can be spotted at the point of the original touch, unless the ball lands in the end zone, in which case it is an automatic touch-back. That's why refs throw the bean bag at the original touch, not where the ball is picked up. It is still a "live" ball after the touch in the sense that the receiving team can pick up the ball and advance it.

As for an illegal touching on a free kick, that occurs when the kicking team's player either tackles or interferes with the receiving team's player trying to make a play on the ball. No one on Clemson was trying to make a play on the ball here.

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 11:01 AM
 

Also, it is not cited under "On Sides Kick" as the OP stated, it is referenced under "free kick." There is no section in the rule book named "On side kick," but there is a section for "kicks" which is comprised of 2 sub-sections "free kicks" and "scrimmage kicks."

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 11:48 AM
 

Thank you. That confirms what I thought originally. I didn't have access to see the original rules and Exception V. didn't make sense as presented.

Exception V is under Sec 4 Opportunity To Catch A Kick. It could be either a Free (Onsides) or Scrimage Kick. Exception V applies to a scrimage kick.

Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

2021 white level member link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 10:21 AM
 

The OP is not posting the entire rule or set of rules that apply to the situations, he is merely posting the parts that seem to agree with his odd hypothesis, which is incorrect in the context of the full rules of football.

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 15, 2016, 12:30 AM
 

Where does it say it has to bounce backwards...SHOW ME!!! And show me in Rule #2 where it says it has to touch the ground first.

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 15, 2016, 6:51 AM
 

It doesn't has to, it's just covering the instance in which it does.

link

Really? When have you ever seen a kick


Posted: Jan 15, 2016, 12:42 AM
 

go past 10 yards and then bounce back into the neutral zone? I want to see a video of that, as it almost a physical impossibility.

link

Re: Really? When have you ever seen a kick


Posted: Jan 15, 2016, 6:52 AM
 

I don't believe I said I have. But that is why it is a good rule, it covers all possible scenarios.

link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 16, 2016, 12:14 AM
 

Yes, the lob kick is legal...provided that it isn't touched or interfered with by the kicking team in a way that violates any of the onside kick rules and their subsequent applicable exceptions. I've already thoroughly explained why the way in which the kicking team recovered the ball wasn't legal according to the 2015 NCAA Football Rule Book.

Think of it this way. If the way in which the ball was simply lobbed into the air as a pass to catch in flight with no real advantage for the receiving team to recover it were legal, that would be ridiculous as it would basically be akin to a jump ball scenario in basketball.

Anyone that has ever even played yard ball knows that lobbing a football off a tee is much easier than deflecting it off the ground to produce an equivalent hop. Then all a team would have to do to exploit this play would be to have your kicker practice lobbing the ball high enough to allow enough time for his teammates to close the gap to literally turn the play into a jump ball situation. Then all a team would have to do is spend a few scholarships on 7 footers with decent burst speed(or better yet don't waste any scholi's at all and just let some of your basketball players dual sport it hah) and with enough practice and the right players, the kicking team could lob the ball back to themselves the entire game and rarely even have to go on defense.

But hey, maybe you are right and the rule book exception is a misprint and I just happen to be the first person ever to think of a way for a football team to keep the ball for 90% of the game and rarely have to go on defense. Oh and then of course you will respond that that would be different because if a receiving team player was also trying to recover the 'jump ball' then it would be catch interference. But would it really? Of course not, because those silly catch interference rules are also just pointless exceptions to Rule #2. And we're already selectively throwing those out :)

Lastly, it's perfectly fine with me if you take this as an opinion, but kickoffs are not supposed to grant the kicking team an equal chance at recovering the ball. Saban said in an interview that he knew they needed it and thought it was worth the "50/50 chance they had to recover it." The way the rules are written if followed correctly make it exceedingly difficult for the kicking team on purpose because the odds of the kicking team recovering the ball are supposed[/b} to be very low. A last ditch effort, football's version of the "squeeze play," nowhere near 50/50 if the rules are ALL followed(granted it is true they almost universally never enforce some things like the 9yd rule).

Why is it supposed to be so rare to onside recover? Because anything else would be stupid, that's why. Kickoffs are designed to happen either after the kicking team has JUST scored and other than that granted once a piece between the two teams per half. I really hope I don't have to explain why this makes sense, why it makes for a fair game and why it is designed this way...

But in the end, it worked well for Alabama. It surprised almost everyone. Almost all the fans. ALL the Clemson players and coaches. And it sure as #### surprised the refs because they were so stunned and bedazzled by it that they didn't even review the legality of it even after Dabo specifically told them what was wrong with it and that he had been flagged for the same play before.

Sorry, but at this point I am pretty much done with this thread since it seems like a lot of people are just responding with the same stuff without really looking into what I've said multiple times and ways.

But anyways, my apologies to both Bama fans and Clemson fans if I've upset any of you that much because I really just wanted to discuss this one play, not make a game loss excuse thread. The fact is that I don't think Clemson deserved to win. They had too many opportunities to do just that but made too many mistakes instead and Alabama made absolutely no real mistakes that I recall and I don't want to enrage even more of you by suggesting that they had good luck as well, but my opinion is that I think they had both(no mistakes and good luck), as the final stat disparity is indeed counter-intuitively deceptive.

Do I personally think Clemson would have won if not for the onside kick play? Yes. But that's irrelevant because it's only an opinion and there were half a dozen other plays and players I could point to that could have turned the game for or against us as well. And sorry if this somehow also offends, but the clock run off did #### me off too.


link

Re: The lob kick is legal dude


Posted: Jan 16, 2016, 12:17 AM
 

If possible, could a mod edit my post to remove the huge bolded section? I guess I can't edit posts or whatever at gimp level account status. Anyways, "supposed" was the only word I meant to bold but I guess I fat-fingered the tags.

link

Re: If the ball is snapped, it's a scrimmage kick.


Posted: Jan 17, 2016, 11:12 AM
 

There are 12 articles in Rule 6 (Kicks), Section 1 (not 13). Article 5 never mentions an onside kick. Here is Rule 6, Article 5:

Free Kick at Rest
ARTICLE 5. If a free kick comes to rest inbounds and no player attempts to secure it, the ball becomes dead and belongs to the receiving team at the dead- ball spot.

Again, nothing about an onside nor a scrimmage kick. Are you sure that you are looking at the NCAA Football Rules for 2015? (http://www.ncfafootball.com/resources/Rules/FR15.pdf)

link

Re: Nice use of capital letters, but you're very wrong.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:30 PM
 

The conditional Rule #2 that then references 4 exception Approved Rulings #5 of which contains the word scrimmage kick. If the Approved Ruling didn't apply based on the AR containing the words 'scrimmage kick,' then it would not have been specifically cited as an exception for one of the 3 rules that make the recovery of an onside kick legal.

Take your verbiage issue up with the author(s) of the 2015 NCAA Football Rule Book, not me. Your understanding of the word scrimmage may be different than mine, but a scrimmage is defined as a confused struggle or fight. If you don't think that's what an onside kick results in past the neutral zone, then I don't think anyone is going to convince you of anything other than what you already believe and have chosen to accept as reality.

But to make it very simple for you to understand, if AR V. didn't apply as an exception, it wouldn't have been listed as one.

link

You are the first person to explain this well and have it


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:10 AM
 

Make sense in light of the ruling during the SC game.
Now would like to see Dabo request an official ruling from the NCAA so at least everyone will know the rule going forward.

link

Everyone (important) already knows the rule


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:11 AM
 

It is cut and dried in the rulebook. No need for a ruling. The kick was completely legal.

link

Re: Everyone (important) already knows the rule


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:48 PM
 

Yes the kick was legal, but the catch was not :)

Go back, reread, contemplate and try again to understand. It's not cut and dry and it's apparently something you don't understand at all.

If it were cut and dry, it wouldn't have been officiated differently multiple times in the past. And also, all onside kick attempts would simply be lobs to receivers as that is much easier than deflecting a ball off the ground.

link

catch was legal


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 11:17 PM
 

the catch was as legal as it gets.


Touching and Recovery of a Free Kick
ARTICLE 3. a. No Team A player may touch a free-kicked ball until after:
1. It touches a Team B player (Exception: Rules 6-1-4 and 6-5-1-b); (this is when the ball has not traveled 10 yds

This did not happen

2. It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s restraining line (Exception: Rule 6-4-1) (A.R. 2-12-5-I); OR

This is what happened


3. It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond Team B’s restraining line.
Thereafter, all players of Team A become eligible to touch, recover or catch the kick.

link

His explanation is incorrect (see above).


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:34 AM
 

As far as the SC game last year when our onside kick recovery was ruled illegal, it was the correct call because we interfered with the coot player's ability to catch the ball. Against Alabama, we did not have a player in the vicinity of where the ball was kicked, so there was no interference. Completely legal and flawlessly executed.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

"Democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard."
- H. L. Mencken


Re: His explanation is incorrect (see above).


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:35 PM
 

If you simply read the Approved Rulings that I posted in their entirety in a reply above, you would know that there are two separate AR's(out of the 4 exceptions for Rule #2) that could apply to the play. One of them considers the vicinity of a receiving team player and the other does not require a player be anywhere near the play.

So, my explanation is correct.

link

Re: His explanation is incorrect (see above).


Posted: Jan 17, 2016, 11:19 AM
 

Ahhh...so you are basing your interpretation of the rules on "Approved Rulings," which is quite different than the "Rule Book=NCAA Rules and Interpretations 2015." I am not familiar with the Approved Rulings, but I think the Rules would likely form the basis for all on field rules.

link

Re: You are the first person to explain this well and have it


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:16 PM
 

but OP is not correct

in the coot game, the coot called for a fair catch and that was the end of it. Ball belongs to receiving team, point blank

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:15 AM
 

Let it go geez you sound pathetic

Scrimmage Kick: ”A scrimmage kick is a punt, drop kick, or field goal place kick.

link

based on what reference?***


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:42 PM
 



link

Re: based on what reference?***


Posted: Jan 17, 2016, 11:26 AM
 

Rule 2, Section 16, Article 7
Scrimmage Kick (?=.)
ARTICLE 7� a� A scrimmage kick is a punt, drop kick, or field goal place kick� It is a legal kick if it is made by Team A in or behind the neutral zone during a scrimmage down before team possession changes�
b� A scrimmage kick has crossed the neutral zone when it touches the ground, a player, an official or anything beyond the neutral zone (Exception: Rule 6-3-1-b) (A�R� 6-3-1-I-IV)�
c� A scrimmage kick made when the kicker’s entire body is beyond the neutral zone is an illegal kick and a live-ball foul that causes the ball to become dead (Rule 6-3- 10-c)�

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:54 PM
 

Again with the scrimmage kick? Ok, lets just assume that out of the 13 AR's listed, one of the 4 that they cited as an onside kick exception contained the words 'scrimmage kick' to secretly invalidate it's citation, in addition to apparently f#$k with everyone's head.

Can you please explain ANY other reason for AR V. being cited as an exception by Onside Kick Rule #2 if it doesn't actually apply? I'll be waiting for your brilliant response, obligatory insult and "get over it."

Crickets...

link

Eggttttt...WRONG!!!

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:21 AM
 

For one, you are looking at the rules of a scrimmage kick, not a free kick. That kick was a free kick.


I've actually explained the whole thing out there already, and the correct version. It was a LEGAL kick.

Section 6-4-1:

The rules stated by some fans about the 10 yard rule are not the full reason...it's just a minor piece that determines the 10 yard distance. It isn't looking into the issue that is being presented by Clemson fans and Dabo, which is actually where the answer lies.

Look at rule 2 specifically...there is an Exception, which is where the confusion has come in. The ball was kicked directly into the air, not bounced off the ground. It doesn't have to bounce off the ground...however, if kicked in the air direct, it is deemed a free kick (thus fair catch rules then apply to the receiving team). During a free kick, rule 6-4-1 comes into play, that states that 1) a player must be able to catch the ball unimpeded (which is where Clemson fans are wondering due to the CU/SCar game onside call of 2014 that the replay officials stated "since the ball was kicked into the air and not off the ground, the receiving team must have an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick")...and 2) the player must be located so to be able to recover the onside kick (i.e. has to be where he could catch it). THIS is where it became legal.

Clemson had been bringing guys inward during kicks, and when the kick was made, there was no Clemson player in the area the ball was kicked. Because of that, there was no player to impede against, thus the ball is a live ball once it crossed the 10 yard boundary (if a Clemson player had been there, rule 6-4-1 would have been used to overturn it). So it's Clemson's ST positioning that led to the play, and is also the reasons the "unimpeded" part of 6-4-1 cannot be contested...unlike the SCarolina game, where the players did impede over top of the SCar players to get that onside kick. That is the difference.

NCAA (2014)
Rule 6 Section 4 Opportunity To Catch a Kick

Interference With Opportunity

ARTICLE 1. a. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V, VI and IX).

b. It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul.(A.R.6-4-1-X-XIII)

c. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground (Exception: Free kick, par. f below), when any player of Team B muffs or touches a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team B muffs or touches a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Exception: Rule 6-5-1-b) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV).

link

Re: Eggttttt...WRONG!!!


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:02 PM
 

So again, my friend. Why is AR. V cited as an exception to Onside Kick Rule #2 if it isn't valid?

I'll be waiting on your answer also.

Clearly the intention of citing AR V. (when read completely and taken as a WHOLE) was intentional and meant to be listed as an exception.

Take up the 'scrimmage kick' verbiage that is outraging all of you with Rule Book authors, not me.

And again, a scrimmage is a confused struggle or fight, which defines the very essence of an onside kick. You are simply attempting to use a technicality to invalidate the clear intention and spirit of AR V.

link

Re: Eggttttt...WRONG!!!


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:15 PM
 

A "scrimmage" refers to a defense being able to challenge the play...i.e a punt, or field goal. Kick offs (and onside) kicks are considered free kicks because there is no challenge to the kick itself. You don't know what you're talking about.

link

Re: Eggttttt...WRONG!!!


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 1:51 AM
 

Sure, but you do know what you are talking about which is why I'm sure you can explain why AR V. is specifically cited as an exception by Onside Kick Rule #2 since you are saying that citation doesn't apply and is meaningless.

Then why is it listed as an exception? As an adept at both football and reading comprehension, you should easily be able to answer that question. I'll be waiting for your answer.

link

It doesn't matter whether the kick was lobbed


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:46 PM
 

or bounced off the ground, it's still a free kick. You still have to give the receiving team an opportunity to catch it and the same interference rules, etc. apply.

link

I'm done


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:29 AM
 

with the onside kick explanation. I was done when UNC wanted to cry about it actually. We got caught sleeping and we paid for it. The onside kick is not why we lost the game. a 95 yard kickoff return for a TD, 2 blown coverage assignments, and a missed tackle for loss on 3rd down is why we lost.

I believe if Mac was in the game we wouldn't have had those blown coverages. He is good about getting people where they need to be pre-snap. He is always waving his hands and gesturing to the other DBs. He also would have made that tackle on Howard.


Forget about the onside kick. that is not why we lost.

link

Re: I'm done


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:08 PM
 

My OP, from the very subject onward, has nothing to do with my opinion on why we lost the game. That is your interpretation of my post, based on emotions you injected into it yourself while reading it. Go back and reread what I said.

I simply wanted to discuss this one play and didn't project my opinions onto the facts in the OP. I do indeed, however, have very biased opinions about the game and why we lost and I am happy to share those as well, but this particular OP included none of those. It was simply a mechanical discussion of the rules with citations referenced from the 2015 NCAA Football Rule Book.

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:33 AM
 

The onsides kick was a free kick. No interference occurred because Thompson was 2 yards from the ball. Section 4, 1b (6-4-1b) states that one yard is the standard for interference. If Thompson waved his hand for a fair catch, then the Alabama defender would have been forced to allow him to catch the ball or to allow the ball hit the ground. If Thompson could not have gained immediate possession, he should have "pushed" the ball out of bounds resulting in Clemson possession. Unfortunately, this was a very good and clean onsides kick by Alabama performed exceptionally well at a strategic time.

link

Yes, not only legal, but a gorgeous football play.***

[1]
Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:37 AM
 



link

Re: Yes, not only legal, but a gorgeous football play.***


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:12 PM
 

It was a brilliant call that caught our team off-guard but was not officiated correctly. Saban took a calculated risk and it was indeed worth it, as even the officials were caught off-guard.

The game was exciting in all aspects.

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:10 PM
 

You obviously didn't read the OP which explains why the lob and catch was illegal. And while I've tried to remain fair in responding to everyone's replies, I'm not going to spend much time on your's since you didn't even read mine.

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 10:58 AM
 

I have a question about Rule 6-4-1 V ? If It applies to a punt/scrimage kick, how can the kicking team catch it in the air to down the ball? If not what does it mean? This is the only thing that questions the kick.

2021 white level member link

The kicking team can catch the ball on the fly on a punt.


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 11:16 AM
 

You see it happen sometimes. The rule says, however, that if you do that when the receiving team didn't have a chance to catch it, it is illegal touching. In all legal cases you've seen where the punting team catches one of their punts on the fly, it's because the receiving team could have caught it, but chose not to try.

Normally, obviously, they let the punt hit the ground first.

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:21 PM
 

My initial understanding of it is that is still counted as illegal touching which is a foul of sorts but not a penalty that results in added on yards, but instead allows the receiving team to take the ball where the illegal touching occurred.

It's counter-intuitive for sure to think of illegal touching allowing a kicking team to benefit by pinning you back on a good punt, but maybe this has just become an accepted play or perhaps the Rule Book section that details all aspects of punting has a rule or exception that explains why this is allowed to benefit the kicking team. I haven't researched it myself.

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:23 PM
 

it is a rule that needs to be looked at and clarified. plain and simple. nothing can be done about it now. just get it fixed and make it plain.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:45 PM
 

https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/40tri3/get_your_kicks_in_rule_6kick_catch_interference/

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:28 PM
 

That article is one of many that was quickly investigated and posted up without actually expounding on the very exceptions to the Rules that I mentioned in my OP.

While it seems to anger many people that refuse to accept it (many Clemson fans included), the lob and catch onside kick does indeed result in illegal touching by the kicking team player that caught the ball. A fair-catch signal with a receiving team player nearby would have resulted in an even more severe penalty, but was not required for the play to be considered illegal and the ball given to Clemson at the point of the illegal touching foul.

link

Corso said we lost b/c of the onsides kick


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:45 PM
 

That settles it.

link

Re: Corso said we lost b/c of the onsides kick


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 8:47 PM
 

The kicker seems to be offsides on the kick. More than his plant foot is across the line when kick occurs

link

Re: Corso said we lost b/c of the onsides kick


Posted: Jan 13, 2016, 9:30 PM
 

The consensus on that particular issue seems to be that kickers are allowed to have their plant foot beyond the line when making the kick. I haven't researched that issue at all either myself.

link

There is a very special category for this post..


Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 10:28 AM
 

Subsection G

Get a life.

2021 purple level memberbadge-donor-15yr.jpg link

Orange Googlers Unite

Save Tigernet--Boot the coots(you know who I mean).


Re: There is a very special category for this post..

[1]
Posted: Jan 14, 2016, 10:38 AM
 

I argreed with the call at the time and expained the SC kick difference to others watching. I just want to understand the Exception V. If it only applies to punts/scrimage kicks why is it cited under OnSides Kicks?

2021 white level member link

Re: There is a very special category for this post..


Posted: Jan 16, 2016, 1:39 AM
 

NCAA (2014)
Rule 6 Section 4 Opportunity To Catch a Kick

Interference With Opportunity

ARTICLE 1. a. A player of the receiving team within the boundary lines attempting to catch a kick, and so located that he could have caught a free kick or a scrimmage kick that is beyond the neutral zone, must be given an unimpeded opportunity to catch the kick (A.R. 6-3-1-III, A.R. 6-4-1-V, VI and IX).

b. It is an interference foul if, before the receiver touches the ball, a Team A player enters the area defined by the width of the receiver’s shoulders and extending one yard in front of him. When in question it is a foul.(A.R.6-4-1-X-XIII)

c. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground (Exception: Free kick, par. f below), when any player of Team B muffs or touches a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any player of Team B muffs or touches a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Exception: Rule 6-5-1-b) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV).

Exception V is under Sec 4 Opportunity To Catch A Kick, Artcle 1. It could be either a Free (On-sides) or Scrimmage Kick(Note ARTICLE 1 refers to both). Exception V applies to a scrimmage kick. Illegal Touching on a scrimmage kick affords the receiving team the choice of taking the ball where it is touched or downed(touchback rules also apply).

2021 white level member link

Re: There is a very special category for this post..


Posted: Jan 17, 2016, 9:28 AM
 

The exception only applies to scrimmage kicks, not free kicks (kickoffs).

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained

[1]
Posted: Jan 17, 2016, 6:55 AM
 

And now, finally, just to beat this to death and put an absolute dagger in the back of those that absolutely INSIST the recovery was legal according to the rules and that this was a ridiculous and whiny(maybe for those that find a fact-based discussion emotional) thread...

Here are the same rules from the High School Football for an onside kick. And yes, while I can already hear you grumbling that the play we've been discussing "didn't happen in a high school game you idiot!" Here's the thing...they are situationally identical in practice and process, describing in even more detail the exact same circumstances that would make the kicking team recovery of the ball in this manner illegal.

All of the exact same NCAA Approved Ruling recovery exceptions are discussed. But rather than being explained in two different sections consisting of a main section that cites K team recovery rules plus a separate section that lists K team recovery exceptions, it is all explained in a couple nice, neat sequential user-friendly paragraphs.

The main difference between the two is that they refer to this type of recovery as First Touching instead of Illegal Touching, but it results in exactly the same outcome: the Receiving Team taking possession of the ball at the spot of the First/Illegal Touching.

And here it is for your reading pleasure:

6.1.5.

ART.5 . . . If any K player recovers or catches a free kick, the ball becomes
dead. It belongs to him unless it is kick-catching interference and R chooses an
awarded fair catch or unless it is first touching. Any K player may recover the ball
before it goes beyond R’s free-kick line if it is touched first by any receiver. Such
touching in the neutral zone by R is ignored if it is caused by K pushing or block-
ing R into contact with the ball or if K muffs the ball into contact with R. Any K
player may recover a free kick if it has both touched the ground and goes beyond
the plane of R’s free-kick line. The two requirements may occur in any order.
If a
free kick becomes dead inbounds between the goal lines while no player is in pos-
session, or inbounds anywhere while opponents are in joint possession, the ball
is awarded to R.
ART.6 . . . If any K player touches a free kick before it crosses R’s free-kick
line and before it is touched there by any R player, it is referred to as “first touch-
ing of the kick.” R may take the ball at the spot of first touching, or any spot if
there is more than one spot of first touching, or they may choose to have the ball
put in play as determined by the action which follows first touching.
Such touch-
ing is ignored if it is caused by R pushing or blocking K into contact with the ball.
The right of R to take the ball at the spot of first touching by K is canceled if R
touches the kick and thereafter during the down commits a foul or if the penalty
is accepted for any foul committed during the down.
ART.7 . . . A free kick is not repeated unless:
a. A foul occurs prior to a change of possession and the penalty acceptance
requires a replay of the down.

So, in closing, just as in High School, this is the same reason that the onside kick in College Football is almost never attempted as a lob kick caught in flight without even attempting to have it touch the ground or a receiving player first. Yes, even as it is explained in the above excerpt, it does take a bit of reading comprehension to understand you can't simply pick and choose conditions involving variables such as before/after R line, R first touch, ball hitting ground etc, given the fact that there is more than one statement containing an AND condition. But, yes, it is all ultimately there and the ball can't be recovered even past the R line unless it has either touched the ground, touched an R player or unless a K player was pushed into touching the ball by an R player.

And this is also the reason that this scenario is almost always flagged when the ball is recovered in this manner. And yes, they almost always state that it needs to touch the ground as the reason during their explanation when there are no relevant collisions near the ball, which most of you have decided means that the ref was simply right about catch interference but too dumb to explain the reason correctly...wrong again.

Why do some refs not call it? I suppose for the same reason that they miss multiple calls in every type of play situation in almost every game. Whether it be that they just suck at their job, are biased, can't remember ever rule, sub-rule and exception in the huge, ever-growing and always evolving rule book or simply D) All Of The Above? I won't suggest any more nefarious reasons or temptations even though that has surely been a factor before as well.

Anyways, for those of you that still plan to live and die by the word "scrimmage" in AR V. to proudly wear your blinders and refuse to believe that the wording is either interpreted differently in this situation by the NCAA Rule Book writer and/or could be a typo or exactly how they meant to phrase it; I can only suggest that you write them to report the discrepancy and get an explanation.

But AR V. was specifically cited and would be impossible to apply under any other situation directly related to the initiating Rule's citation if those of you that thought that were indeed correct in assuming a single word simply invalidated 1 of 3 directly related(based on progressive player vicinity and contact) AR recovery exceptions. Meaning...it would be beyond stupid to cite AR V. which would be paramount to intentionally citing nothing.

The recovery was not officiated properly. The ball should have been given to Clemson at the place of First/Illegal Touching. The NCAA Rule Book supports this fact through the citation and its obvious and intended meaning. That being said, it is not well-written, confusing and needs to be petitioned for review and potential updating, or at least clarification for the coaches.

No matter what you think about this ruling, I would hope that most of you could at least admit that it is unfair for a team to lose out big time in a play like this on the biggest stage of their level when they never even considered it something they'd need to defend against(since they had been very recently flagged for the VERY SAME PLAY and told it wasn't legal to recover the ball in that fashion - and no they were not told it was due to catch interference but rather indeed because the ball did not hit the ground). Which, for the very last time, was the proper ruling and will remain to be for as long as the NCAA Rule Book in its present state remains unchanged...

PS: Don't use this as an excuse thread but please do send all idiot sport writers here for learning purposes if they insist on writing gloating articles with subject lines boasting, "ALABAMA’S CRAZY SURPRISE ONSIDE KICK WAS INDEED LEGAL" written by some lazy girl that didn't even bother investigating the information that would have been revealed by researching those obviously pointless, silly and confusing Approved Ruling citations. Millennial Journalism at its finest no doubt!

link

Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 17, 2016, 8:23 AM
 

Holy ####! How are you still talking about this???? You've been proven wrong so many times already. Are you going to be posting Pee-wee league or maybe rugby rules next?

Anyway, you talk about reading comprehension, yet you completely misread the "first touching rule".


If any K player touches a free kick before it crosses R’s free-kick line and before it is touched there by any R player, it is referred to as “first touch-ing of the kick.” Do you seriously not understand this sentence or are you just trying to be annoying??? What this is saying is that a player on the kicking team can't touch the ball before it goes the 10 yards unless a player on the receiving team touches it!!!! It clearly says "before it is touched there" in referring to crossing the receiving team's free-kick line (10 yard mark).

So now that we know what "first touching" refers to, neither of the two either/or scenarios that are stated in the first rule. It wasn't kick-catch interference, a fair catch wasn't called, and it wasn't "first touching".

link

Incorrect yubyub re: Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 17, 2016, 9:25 AM
 

yubyub, I have read your original post and the rules repeatedly looking for an alternate interpretation that suits your explanation. It does not exist. I wish it did and I wish that Clemson had won the game. Here are the rules:

A scrimmage kick does not equate to a free kick. A kickoff is a free kick. Your exception applies to a scrimmage kick (punt, drop kick, quick punt, field goal). As such, the exception does not apply in this situation.

• A free kick puts the ball in play to start a free-kick down for a kickoff or for a kick following a safety
– A kickoff puts the ball in play at the beginning of each half of the game, after a successful field goal and after any try
– A place kick or a drop kick shall be used for the kickoff
• A scrimmage kick is any legal kick from in or behind the neutral zone
• Types of Kicks:
– A drop kick kicker drops the ball and kicks it when it touches the ground or as it is rising from the ground
– A place kick a kick made while the ball is in a fixed position on the ground or on a kicking tee
– A punt kicker drops the ball and kicks it before it has touched the ground.

Here are the NCAA rules copied and pasted (? = .):
Touching and Recovery of a Free Kick
ARTICLE 3� a� No Team A player may touch a free-kicked ball until after:
1� It touches a Team B player (Exception: Rules 6-1-4 and 6-5-1-b);
2� It breaks the plane of and remains beyond Team B’s restraining line (Exception: Rule 6-4-1) (A�R� 2-12-5-I); or
3� It touches any player, the ground, an official or anything beyond Team B’s restraining line�

THEREAFTER, ALL PLAYERS OF TEAM A BECOME ELIGIBLE TO TOUCH, RECOVER OR CATCH (YES, CATCH) THE KICK.

b� Any other touching by Team A is illegal touching, a violation that, when the ball becomes dead, gives the receiving team the privilege of taking the ball at the spot of the violation�
c� If there is an accepted penalty for a live-ball foul by either team, or if there are offsetting fouls, the illegal touching privilege is canceled (A�R� 6-1-3-I)�
d� Illegal touching in Team A’s end zone is ignored�

Sections 6-3-2 and 6-3-3 were satisfied. The ball went past Team B (Clemson's) restraining line (ten yards from the ball). Team B (Alabama) is allowed to CATCH the ball. It touched Team A player (Alabama) beyond Team B's (Clemson's) restraining line. The only exception that applies is that the receiver must be allowed to field the ball without interference (sxception 6-4-1b). The standard distance ruling for interference is ONE YARD from the ball. Clearly, on the replay, Thompson was about TWO YARDS from the ball. The only way it would QUESTIONABLY have been interference is if Thompson had raised his hand for a fair catch, then the referees MAY have given us the benefit of the doubt and been forced to allow him a chance to dive at the catch, which means that the Alabama player must allow the ball to touch the ground if the receiver (Thompson) did not make a successful effort to retrieve the ball. The only saving play for Clemson at this point would have been to "push" the ball successfully out of bounds, which would resulting a Clemson possession.

I cannot explain it any more clearly than this. I appreciate your fervent effort to prove the referees wrong. I too wish that the referees were wrong as they frequently are. They were wrong in many other instances during the game, such as missed pass interference calls and missed multiple holding calls. Unfortunately for us, they were absolutely correct in this call.

link

Re: Incorrect yubyub re: Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 25, 2016, 8:25 AM
 

If I may ask you a question then...

First, I can assume we agree that the primary section of the rule book that applies to the play in question is the section entitled, "Touching and Recovery of a Free Kick," that has 3 primary either OR conditional rules.

In this case, Rule #2 applies to the play.

Rule #2's basic condition has been met so we must now look at the 4 cited exceptions.

All 4 of the cited AR's make sense(don't worry about the word free vs scrimmage at this point) in relation to the originating rule that cited them (Rule #2). In fact, not only do they make sense, but indicate a progression from least to most severe infraction/resulting penalty.

Now my questions for you...

First question: Why would AR V. be cited by Rule #2 under a section specifically regarding Free Kicks if it didn't apply to a free kick?

Second question: If it doesn't apply, shouldn't there only be 3 cited exceptions AR I, AR II and AR XII for Rule #2?

Third question: What purpose is there in a rule citing an AR exception that could and would in fact never be possible to apply under any scenario? Obviously, that would make absolutely no sense.

Now, at this point, we certainly must both agree that this leads us to one inescapable conclusion. There is an error in the rule book. We are simply disagreeing about the nature of the error.

The error is either:

A) They accidentally cited a random AR that they didn't even read but yet it somehow miraculously makes perfect sense in relation to Rule #2 in addition to aligning perfectly with almost everyone's traditional understanding of an onside kick(10yards + touch ground or player) when read as part of a whole alongside the other two originating conditional rules and accepted AR exceptions.

OR

B) They read AR V. and intended it to apply to the originating rule(#2) regarding free kicks and thus cited it on purpose, which then means that they either:

1) overlooked the word scrimmage and/or didn't consider its use in the AR exclusionary
2) meant to use the word free instead of or in addition to scrimmage in AR V.
3) basically any other scenario in which they intended AR V. to apply and not be voided entirely based on the inclusion or exclusion(intended or otherwise) and/or (mis)understanding of one single word.

So, what do you think is more likely? That Rule #2 intentionally cited an AR that could never apply under any circumstance? Or mistakenly cited an accidental 4th AR that wasn't intended but just happens to make perfect sense in relation to the originating rule?

OR

Just maybe...they overlooked the fact that ONE word was accidentally included, excluded or misused by mistake in AR V. that otherwise makes complete sense in relation to Rule #2?

So, believe what you want. Me personally, I tend to believe that they cited AR V. because they intended it to apply to Rule #2, since it does and since it has been flagged before.

I wonder if there is an archive of all the previous years of NCAA Football Rule Books somewhere for comparative purposes.

link

Re: Incorrect yubyub re: Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 25, 2016, 8:53 AM
 

WHY THE HEALL ARE YOU BUMPING THIS OLD ### THREAD.

badge-donor-05yr.jpg link

null


Re: Onside Kick Legality - Rule #2's Exceptions Explained


Posted: Jan 17, 2016, 11:39 AM
 

This thread has lots of words in it.

2021 white level memberbadge-donor-05yr.jpg link

Replies: 95  

TIGER TICKETS

FB GAME: Season Tickets
FOR SALE: The Season Is Almost Here...FOR SALE : Two tickets South Lower Sec :H Row II seats 13,15 About 12 st...

Buy or Sell CU Tickets and More in Tiger Tickets!

[ Archives - Tiger Boards Archive ]
Start New Topic
11341 people have read this post