[Husker] kick reception interference

[Mike Jaixen]

The actual rule:
SECTION 4. Opportunity To Catch a Kick
Interference With Opportunity
ARTICLE 1. 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 and A.R. 6-4-1-X).
a. This protection terminates when the kick touches the ground, when any player
of Team B muffs a scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone, or when any
player of Team B muffs a free kick in the field of play or in the end zone (Rule
6-5-1-a) (A.R. 6-4-1-IV).
b. If interference with a potential receiver is the result of a player being blocked
by an opponent, it is not a foul.
c. 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, VII and
IX). When in question, it is an interference foul.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR09.pdf

Note item c:  if the kicking team contacts the potential receiver simultaneous to his first touching the ball, and when in question, it is an interference foul.

Meaning that the Washington tackler could not touch Burkhead until after Burkhead had clearly touched the ball.  If it's not clear that the touch happened after Burkhead touched, it is a penalty.  From my perspective, it was simultaneous and thus a foul.



 
Mike Jaixen
http://huskermike.blogspot.com
http://www.cornnation.com


________________________________
From: Mark Landin <marklandin at gmail.com>
To: Theodore Heise <theo at heise.nu>; Husker List <husker at tssi.com>
Sent: Monday, September 19, 2011 11:36 AM
Subject: Re: [Husker] kick reception interference

From what I saw, the marlowe call was botched but given how many
players from both teams were in that small area, it was easy to see
how the refs didn't see everything correctly.

For burkhead, that call was harder to defend. He fielded the ball
cleanly without signalling fair catch, and got levelled with a legal
tackle a fraction of a second later. While I sympathize with Superman,
there was no basis for a flag there. He was not impeded and the tackle
was clean and within the rules.

The third penalty was correct by rule.

Again, my opinion.

On 9/19/11, Theodore Heise <theo at heise.nu> wrote:
>
>
>> From my perspective in south stadium, the call on the Burkhead
>> punt return was absolutely correct. This isn't the halo rule; you
>> have to have a chance to catch the punt, and Washington didn't
>> give him a chance.  The rules quoted online show the calls were
>> correct. But I haven't seen a single replay.
>
> Not to belabor the point, but if he made the catch doesn't that say
> something about having had an adequate chance to catch the punt?
>
> Good point that nobody thought it newsworthy enough to show widely
> in replays.
>
> --
> Theodore (Ted) Heise     <theo at heise.nu>     Bloomington, IN, USA
>
> _______________________________________________
> husker site list
> husker at tssi.com
> http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker
>

-- 
Sent from my mobile device

"He's old enough to know what's right and young enough not to choose
it. He's strong enough to win the world and weak enough to lose it." -
Neal Peart

_______________________________________________
husker site list
husker at tssi.com
http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker