[Husker] kick reception interference

[Aaron Wolfson]

Mike,

On the ABC replay, it appeared that the defender contacted Rex a
split-second after he caught the ball. In full speed, that would be very
difficult for an official to distinguish, so I agree that it's not as
egregious as, for instance, the Marlowe penalty.

Your points about differences between pass interference and kick catch
interference are very well taken, I hadn't considered that aspect.
Theoretically it would seem that as long as the catch is made before the
hit, the play is clean, but it's true that the return man is in a precarious
situation and deserve to be protected by the rule.

Aaron


On Mon, Sep 19, 2011 at 12:22 PM, Mike Jaixen <mikejaixen at yahoo.com> wrote:

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