On sides kick-fair catch

[wheezer]

Apologize if already addressed

The spirit of the fair catch is to protect the receiver of the ball from injury

It would seem wrong to allow it on an insides kick, particularly if the attempted kickoff was a squib along the ground, never really getting into the air much

If the existing rule allows a fair catch on any kick, imo it should be changed

As a side note
I always thought that the on sides kick was an exciting play
and I hate to see it taken away when all receiving teams just signal fair catch

 

[MCY]

As soon as the receiving team signals for a fair catch they can't advance the ball - period. However, as soon as the ball hits the ground the fair catch protection for the receiving team is off and it's a live ball and the receiving team still cannot advance the ball. Good rule.

 

[wheezer]

As soon as the receiving team signals for a fair catch they can't advance the ball - period. However, as soon as the ball hits the ground the fair catch protection for the receiving team is off and it's a live ball.

Thanks
anyway, It makes sense to ground it right off the tee and take your chances that way, nullify the fair catch right off the bat

 

[Knight Owl]

There was (maybe still is) a highschool coach who onsided every kickoff. They practiced it plenty and were good at it so the metrics said they should do it on every kick. I’m thinking the team had a great offense but a suspect D so winning additional positions paid off because they did have a solid winning record.

 

[noble106]

There was (maybe still is) a highschool coach who onsided every kickoff. They practiced it plenty and were good at it so the metrics said they should do it on every kick. I’m thinking the team had a great offense but a suspect D so winning additional positions paid off because they did have a solid winning record.

If kicking onsides every time means I have to see the D less often, I'm all for it.

 

[Ruthinking]

What I don’t understand is that we kicked it into the ground first and it bounced up. How can you call a fair catch after it hits the ground? What am I missing here?

 

[ScarletKid2008]

What I don’t understand is that we kicked it into the ground first and it bounced up. How can you call a fair catch after it hits the ground? What am I missing here?

I agree on that . Then why couldn’t every player just call fair catch and supposedly nobody can touch them. Doesn’t make sense.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Haven't we seen penalties dished out for fair catch signal AND advancing the ball?

Even if a fair catch was no t possible.. that fair catch signal could be disconcerting to the kick team.. make them back off of making the play because, just maybe, it was a pooch kick by msitake.'

So the idea the ball cannot be advanced is correct.. but I want to know why they were not assessed a penalty. I think we should have gotten 5 yards and a rekick (though I think the honest result should just have been a meaningless yardage penalty because they had to possess the ball before advancing it is a penalty).

game was over either way... but that had to be a penalty... a meaningless one.

 

[robcac26]

There was (maybe still is) a highschool coach who onsided every kickoff. They practiced it plenty and were good at it so the metrics said they should do it on every kick. I’m thinking the team had a great offense but a suspect D so winning additional positions paid off because they did have a solid winning record.

Kevin Kelley. He was hired to coach Presbyterian College in 2021, didn't do so well, and then stepped down after one season. A different Arkansas high school hired him this year. He's 2-5, no idea if he still coaches the same way as he used to though. He would always do onside kicks, I think usually go for two after scoring a touchdown, almost never punt, never had his team field a punt, and at least one year attempted laterals after completed passes.

What I don’t understand is that we kicked it into the ground first and it bounced up. How can you call a fair catch after it hits the ground? What am I missing here?

I was wondering the same thing. None of that play made sense. The UCLA player actually should have just gone down anyway. If the return for a touchdown would have stood, they would have had to kick off and Rutgers would have gone back on offense. A comeback would have still been extremely unlikely, but they at least would have had some sliver of a chance as opposed to UCLA retaining possession and letting the clock run out.

 

[wheezer]

What I don’t understand is that we kicked it into the ground first and it bounced up. How can you call a fair catch after it hits the ground? What am I missing here?

It would make sense that if you call for a fair catch,it would be nullified if you don't catch it before hitting the ground

Anything else is not sensible, and if it isn't that way, should be fixed

And of course, if the kick is that first high bounce, its a free ball after the 10 yards

 

[Source]

My favorite was the way NFL teams did it in the "good old days" when men were men and even the women and children shaved every day!

You placed the ball horizontally on the ground and kicked it at one end. The pancake kick was pure chaos for everyone.

Here's a tutorial on all the types of onside kicks:

 

[Ruthinking]

Haven't we seen penalties dished out for fair catch signal AND advancing the ball?

Even if a fair catch was no t possible.. that fair catch signal could be disconcerting to the kick team.. make them back off of making the play because, just maybe, it was a pooch kick by msitake.'

So the idea the ball cannot be advanced is correct.. but I want to know why they were not assessed a penalty. I think we should have gotten 5 yards and a rekick (though I think the honest result should just have been a meaningless yardage penalty because they had to possess the ball before advancing it is a penalty).

game was over either way... but that had to be a penalty... a meaningless one.

Can someone named @Richie O explain what happened and what the rule is for falsely signaling a fair catch? Should we have been allowed to kick again? Thanks Richie

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Can someone named @Richie O explain what happened and what the rule is for falsely signaling a fair catch? Should we have been allowed to kick again? Thanks Richie

I don't think so.. The infraction happened AFTER they got possession. Like how a hold on a return does not cause a kick-over option. I am not even sure I have ever seen a hold before the kick catch was made resulting in a re-kick... except maybe on a FG try. Yeah.. offsides at snap, personal fouls during teh play.. like roughing.. they can all cancel a result on the play.

the infraction was NOT the fair catch signal.. which came before possession change.. it was running with teh ball after a fair catch call.

My simple and meaningless comment was that there should have also been a yardage penalty added to (subtracted from) the ball-at-spot of fair catch.

I suppose the most interesting call we might all know about was that #2 USF game where they blocked a FG (or was it a punt?) and batted the ball forward.. and that penalty was assessed BEFORE possession so it gave us a first down.

It was a FG.. and we did not keep possession


This was not that.

 

[robcac26]

I don't think so.. The infraction happened AFTER they got possession. Like how a hold on a return does not cause a kick-over option. I am not even sure I have ever seen a hold before the kick catch was made resulting in a re-kick... except maybe on a FG try. Yeah.. offsides at snap, personal fouls during teh play.. like roughing.. they can all cancel a result on the play.

the infraction was NOT the fair catch signal.. which came before possession change.. it was running with teh ball after a fair catch call.

My simple and meaningless comment was that there should have also been a yardage penalty added to (subtracted from) the ball-at-spot of fair catch.

I suppose the most interesting call we might all know about was that #2 USF game where they blocked a FG (or was it a punt?) and batted the ball forward.. and that penalty was assessed BEFORE possession so it gave us a first down.

It was a FG..

View embedded media

This was not that.

Was there a penalty called? If there was, I must have missed it. I thought the ruling was just that the play was dead once it was caught because of the fair catch being signaled, so the return did not count. I still don't understand how a fair catch can be called after the ball hits the ground though.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Was there a penalty called? If there was, I must have missed it. I thought the ruling was just that the play was dead once it was caught because of the fair catch being signaled, so the return did not count. I still don't understand how a fair catch can be called after the ball hits the ground though.

Have you ever seen a flag get thrown when a returner advances the ball after a fair catch signal? I have. That's what I am saying SHOULD have happened.

Of course, the guy returning was not the guy who made the signal.. but I don't think that should matter as that would just encourage such shenanigans. Maybe you get a sweet spot where the return teams sees something that kinda looks alike a fair catch signal and lets up a bit, only to see the ball returned against them. It would be up to refs to figure things out.. without a penalty for doing so.. why not do it every punt? Worst case, you get the fair catch... best case, refs miss the call and allow the return.. and if things go wrong you can argue with replay that you made a fair catch signal.

 

[robcac26]

Have you ever seen a flag get thrown when a returner advances the ball after a fair catch signal? I have. That's what I am saying SHOULD have happened.

Of course, the guy returning was not the guy who made the signal.. but I don't think that should matter as that would just encourage such shenanigans. Maybe you get a sweet spot where the return teams sees something that kinda looks alike a fair catch signal and lets up a bit, only to see the ball returned against them. It would be up to refs to figure things out.. without a penalty for doing so.. why not do it every punt? Worst case, you get the fair catch... best case, refs miss the call and allow the return.. and if things go wrong you can argue with replay that you made a fair catch signal.

Ah I thought you were saying there was a penalty and I just missed it amidst the confusion. Yeah in addition to being confused as to how a fair catch was called after the ball hit the ground, I also thought it was a penalty but I'm by no means an expert on these rules. I've been hoping we have someone who refs chime in here and clear things up.

 

[robcac26]

For whatever it's worth, here's what ChatGPT has to say about it:

This situation is a bit tricky but centers around the rules governing onside kicks and fair catches. Here's a breakdown of the relevant rules and how they apply:

1. **Fair Catch on a Kickoff**: A player can signal for a fair catch on a kickoff as long as the ball hasn't hit the ground. However, **if the ball bounces or touches the ground**, a fair catch **cannot** be called. Once it touches the ground, the fair catch option is off the table.

2. **The Ruling Error**: From what you described, the UCLA player signaling for a fair catch after the ball hit the ground was incorrect. The signal should have been invalid since fair catches are only allowed if the ball hasn’t touched the ground. The officials should have disregarded the fair catch signal since it was made after the ball hit the ground.

3. **Return After Fair Catch**: Normally, if a valid fair catch signal is made, the receiving team cannot advance the ball after catching it. The ball is dead at the spot of the catch. If the player who catches the ball advances it after signaling for a fair catch, it would result in a penalty (typically a delay of game or an illegal fair catch signal penalty).

4. **Correct Ruling**: In this case, since the fair catch signal was made after the ball hit the ground, it should have been ignored. The officials could have let the play proceed with UCLA advancing the ball, as no valid fair catch signal was made. By nullifying the return based on an invalid fair catch, the officials made an incorrect call. In summary, because the fair catch signal was made after the ball hit the ground, it was invalid. The ball should have been live, and UCLA should have been allowed to return it without any penalty.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Nice.. but ChatGPT and all AI is not dependable. There are examples of lawyers asking for supporting case citations and AI making up imaginary cases and presenting them as if they were real... and teh lawyers tried to use it. Some good judge.. or opposing counsel.. caught it.

I am curious.. what question did you ask ChatGPT and which version did you ask?

BTW check out this link..invalid fair catch signal results in ball being marked down

 

[robcac26]

Nice.. but ChatGPT and all AI is not dependable. There are examples of lawyers asking for supporting case citations and AI making up imaginary cases and presenting them as if they were real... and teh lawyers tried to use it. Some good judge.. or opposing counsel.. caught it.

I am curious.. what question did you ask ChatGPT and which version did you ask?

BTW check out this link..invalid fair catch signal results in ball being marked down

Yeah that's why I prefaced with "for whatever it's worth," although it usually is pretty reliable. It shouldn't be used in court like how you mentioned but it's usually fine for general knowledge. Here's how I phrased the question:

"Can you explain this ruling at the end of the Rutgers and UCLA game? Rutgers attempted an onside kick, and after the ball hit the ground, a UCLA player signaled for a fair catch. A different player caught it and returned it, but the return was nullified because of the fair catch signal. I thought once the ball hits the ground, you can't call a fair catch. I also thought it's a penalty for returning after making a fair catch. What should the correct ruling have been?"

The invalid fair catch signal mentioned in your link I think might be different though because the signal was made before the ball hit the ground.

 

[ScarletDave]

I agree something was wrong with the call. Otherwise every player on an onside kick would just call fair catch. The ball hit the ground so no fair catch can be called? i think thats a rule. Or, then if a fair catch can still be called, then UCLA should have gotten a penalty for advancing the ball after a fair catch. Im not sure though if it’s a rekick, or just a yardage penalty, which wouldnt have changed the outcome.

 

[robcac26]

I agree something was wrong with the call. Otherwise every player on an onside kick would just call fair catch. The ball hit the ground so no fair catch can be called? i think thats a rule. Or, then if a fair catch can still be called, then UCLA should have gotten a penalty for advancing the ball after a fair catch. Im not sure though if it’s a rekick, or just a yardage penalty, which wouldnt have changed the outcome.

Yeah the whole point of kicking the ball into the ground on an onside kick is so the other team can't call a fair catch.

 

[wheezer]

Yeah the whole point of kicking the ball into the ground on an onside kick is so the other team can't call a fair catch.

I thought the fair catch thing was a more recent trend, don’t remember teams doing that years ago

Kicking into the ground was to make it harder to catch, more than anything

 

[ru8081]

It was the right call. As stated above you can’t advance a fair catch. Allowing the ball to be advanced when the player signaled for a invalid fair catch would be unfair to the kicking team. Maybe it was a grey area call by the referee. BTW I was at the game sitting by the 40 yard line and it looked like one of the UCLA players was off sides

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Yeah that's why I prefaced with "for whatever it's worth," although it usually is pretty reliable. It shouldn't be used in court like how you mentioned but it's usually fine for general knowledge. Here's how I phrased the question:

"Can you explain this ruling at the end of the Rutgers and UCLA game? Rutgers attempted an onside kick, and after the ball hit the ground, a UCLA player signaled for a fair catch. A different player caught it and returned it, but the return was nullified because of the fair catch signal. I thought once the ball hits the ground, you can't call a fair catch. I also thought it's a penalty for returning after making a fair catch. What should the correct ruling have been?"

The invalid fair catch signal mentioned in your link I think might be different though because the signal was made before the ball hit the ground.

I had an Ollama local AI running on this machine.. but its been awhile.. I forget how to launch it.. maybe I should ask an AI...

Here's Claude AI answer (free version)

I apologize, but I want to be clear - since my knowledge cutoff is April 2024, I can't verify specific details about games that happened after that date. However, I can help explain the general rules regarding onside kicks and fair catches in football:

For an onside kick situation:

1. A fair catch signal cannot be made after the ball has touched the ground
2. If a player signals for a fair catch and then advances the ball, it's a delay of game penalty
3. If one player signals for a fair catch but a different player catches and advances the ball, the return should be nullified and the ball spotted where it was caught

Based on what you've described, if the UCLA player signaled after the ball hit the ground, that signal should have been invalid. The return should have been legal since you cannot signal a fair catch on a bouncing ball. The officials appear to have misapplied this rule if the sequence of events happened as you described.

Would you like me to clarify any other aspects of onside kick or fair catch rules?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

MS Co-Pilot answered robcac26's question this way (it also uses a GPT)

I understand the confusion! In college football, the rules around fair catches and onside kicks can be a bit tricky. Here's what happened in the Rutgers vs. UCLA game:

1. Fair Catch Signal: When a player signals for a fair catch, the ball is considered dead once it touches the ground, and the receiving team can't advance it1.
2. Onside Kick: An onside kick is a kickoff attempt by the kicking team to regain possession of the ball immediately after a score or at the start of the game.
3. Nullified Return: In this case, a UCLA player signaled for a fair catch, and even though a different player caught the ball and returned it, the return was nullified because the fair catch signal was made1.

The correct ruling was that the fair catch signal made the ball dead, and the return was not allowed1. This is to protect the receiving team from being disadvantaged by a premature signal.

Does that clear things up a bit?

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

Google gemini insists the ruling was incorrect:

The ruling in the Rutgers and UCLA game was likely incorrect.

Here's a breakdown of the situation and the correct ruling:

Rules relevant to the situation:

• Onside kick: The kicking team must recover the ball or cause it to be touched by an opponent before it travels 10 yards.
• Fair catch: A player can signal for a fair catch before the ball hits the ground. If the ball is caught without touching the ground, the catch is fair and the receiving team has possession at the spot of the catch.
• Returning after fair catch: If a player signals for a fair catch but then returns the ball, it's a penalty.

Analysis of the play:

1. Onside kick: Rutgers attempted an onside kick.
2. Fair catch signal: A UCLA player signaled for a fair catch before the ball hit the ground.
3. Catch and return: A different UCLA player caught the ball after it hit the ground and returned it.

Correct ruling:

• Fair catch signal: The fair catch signal was valid because it was made before the ball hit the ground.
• Return: Once a player signals for a fair catch, the ball must be caught and retained without touching the ground. Since the UCLA player caught the ball after it hit the ground, the fair catch signal was nullified.
• Penalty: The UCLA player who returned the ball should have been penalized for returning after signaling for a fair catch.

In summary:

The correct ruling should have been a penalty against UCLA for returning the ball after signaling for a fair catch. The fair catch signal was valid, but the return nullified the fair catch.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

..so I saw that Gemini thought the fair catch signal was done before the ball struck the ground.. so I followed up with this: "But the ball was kicked into the ground immediately and bounced high in the air, so the fair catch signal was after the ball struck the ground"

and Gemini responds:

You're absolutely right. I apologize for the oversight.

In your scenario, where the ball was kicked into the ground and bounced high in the air before the fair catch signal, the signal would be invalid.

A fair catch can only be signaled before the ball touches the ground. Once the ball has hit the ground, it's considered in play, and a fair catch is no longer possible.

Therefore, the UCLA player who returned the ball was correct, and the return should have stood.

Thank you for catching my error. It's important to be precise and accurate in analyzing these rules.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

..so I saw that Gemini thought the fair catch signal was done before the ball struck the ground.. so I followed up with this: "But the ball was kicked into the ground immediately and bounced high in the air, so the fair catch signal was after the ball struck the ground"

and Gemini responds:

You're absolutely right. I apologize for the oversight.

In your scenario, where the ball was kicked into the ground and bounced high in the air before the fair catch signal, the signal would be invalid.

A fair catch can only be signaled before the ball touches the ground. Once the ball has hit the ground, it's considered in play, and a fair catch is no longer possible.

Therefore, the UCLA player who returned the ball was correct, and the return should have stood.

Thank you for catching my error. It's important to be precise and accurate in analyzing these rules.

But I saw Gemini made another error and asked it "But isn't there a rule that says an illegal fair catch signal results in a penalty? That would cancel the return out, wouldn't it?"

It responded..

You're correct. There is indeed a rule that states an illegal fair catch signal results in a penalty.

In the scenario you described, where a UCLA player signaled for a fair catch after the ball had hit the ground, that would be considered an illegal fair catch signal. As a result, a penalty would be assessed against UCLA.

However, the penalty would not cancel out the return. The penalty would simply result in a loss of yardage for UCLA. Since the return was already completed, the penalty would be enforced from the spot of the return.

So, in summary:

1. UCLA player signals for a fair catch after the ball hits the ground (illegal fair catch signal).
2. UCLA is penalized for the illegal fair catch signal.
3. The return stands, but UCLA loses yardage due to the penalty.

********************

Now.. I have no idea if Gemini is learning from such interactions and will be more careful in the future.. and although I don't use chat AI often.. I have never seen an AI ask for more information to make sure it had teh full picture before responding while I believe the most intelligent humans would ask for the information they needed to form a response.

 

[robcac26]

I thought the fair catch thing was a more recent trend, don’t remember teams doing that years ago

Kicking into the ground was to make it harder to catch, more than anything

No you kick it into the ground to eliminate the possibility of a fair catch--unless you have the combination of a player and referee that both don't know the rules, like we had on Saturday. If you could fair catch an onside kick, why would the receiving team not just do that every time?

It was the right call. As stated above you can’t advance a fair catch. Allowing the ball to be advanced when the player signaled for a invalid fair catch would be unfair to the kicking team. Maybe it was a grey area call by the referee. BTW I was at the game sitting by the 40 yard line and it looked like one of the UCLA players was off sides

I can't come up with a scenario where everything on this was called correctly. You can't call a fair catch after the ball hits the ground, but it also seems it should have been a penalty either for an illegal fair catch signal or for returning the ball after signaling a fair catch.

 

[robcac26]

But I saw Gemini made another error and asked it "But isn't there a rule that says an illegal fair catch signal results in a penalty? That would cancel the return out, wouldn't it?"

It responded..

You're correct. There is indeed a rule that states an illegal fair catch signal results in a penalty.

In the scenario you described, where a UCLA player signaled for a fair catch after the ball had hit the ground, that would be considered an illegal fair catch signal. As a result, a penalty would be assessed against UCLA.

However, the penalty would not cancel out the return. The penalty would simply result in a loss of yardage for UCLA. Since the return was already completed, the penalty would be enforced from the spot of the return.

So, in summary:

1. UCLA player signals for a fair catch after the ball hits the ground (illegal fair catch signal).
2. UCLA is penalized for the illegal fair catch signal.
3. The return stands, but UCLA loses yardage due to the penalty.

********************

Now.. I have no idea if Gemini is learning from such interactions and will be more careful in the future.. and although I don't use chat AI often.. I have never seen an AI ask for more information to make sure it had teh full picture before responding while I believe the most intelligent humans would ask for the information they needed to form a response.

Interesting to see some different AI platforms arrive at different answers. I probably should have thought of this first, but I just looked it up in the NCAA football rule book and here's what it says.

SECTION 8. FAIR CATCH
ARTICLE 1
a. A fair catch of a scrimmage kick is a catch beyond the neutral zone by a Team B player who has made a valid signal during a scrimmage kick that is untouched beyond the neutral zone.
b. A fair catch of a free kick is a catch by a Team B player who has made a valid signal during an untouched free kick.
c. A valid or invalid fair catch signal deprives the receiving team of the opportunity to advance the ball. The ball is declared dead at the spot of the catch or recovery. If the catch precedes the signal, the ball is dead when the signal is first given.
d. If the receiver shades their eyes from the sun without waving their hand(s), the ball is live and may be advanced.

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2
A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled their intention by extending one hand only clearly above their head and waving that hand from side to side of their body more than once.

Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3
An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B:
a. That does not meet the requirements of Article 2 (above); or
b. That is given after a scrimmage kick is caught beyond the neutral zone,
strikes the ground or touches another player beyond the neutral zone (AR
6-5-3-III-V); or
c. That is given after a free kick is caught, strikes the ground or touches
another player [Exception: Rule 6-4-1-f]

No Advance
ARTICLE 2
No Team B player shall carry a caught or recovered ball more than two steps in any direction after any Team B player gives a valid or invalid fair catch signal (AR 6-5-2-I-III)
PENALTY—Dead-ball foul, delay of game. Five yards from the succeeding
spot [S7 and S21].

So it looks like the ball hitting the ground does indeed make the fair catch signal invalid, but even with an invalid signal, the ball is dead where caught, and there should have been a 5-yard penalty for delay of game for advancing the ball after the fair catch signal.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

...

So it looks like the ball hitting the ground does indeed make the fair catch signal invalid, but even with an invalid signal, the ball is dead where caught, and there should have been a 5-yard penalty for delay of game for advancing the ball after the fair catch signal.

Which is what I said all along.. good to know. How they ever got that call half-right on review.. at least they were going in the right direction. And maybe they realized there should have been a penalty.. but why delay game more and correct that when it was ultimately meaningless.

 

[robcac26]

Which is what I said all along.. good to know. How they ever got that call half-right on review.. at least they were going in the right direction. And maybe they realized there should have been a penalty.. but why delay game more and correct that when it was ultimately meaningless.

It did end up being meaningless, but at the time that wasn't 100% certain. Suppose they fumble the snap and Rutgers gets the ball, those 5 yards could have potentially made a difference.

 

[RU#1fan]

I could be wrong but I never seen an FBS Coach do this on every single kick off and Punt play like Schiano. Even when down 3 scores. Mind boggling.
Playing not to lose = losers more often than not.

 

[Erial_Lion]

The UCLA player gave an “invalid” fair catch signal on the play. The ball is dead once UCLA gains possession, and they should have been hit with a 5 yard delay of game penalty following the play. It was an invalid signal because you can’t call a fair catch once the kick hits the ground.

There is nothing with this rule that could ever be used to your advantage. Basically, the invalid signal just means that the receiving team can’t advance the ball, and will be hit with a delay of game if they try to.

 

[GoodOl'Rutgers]

The UCLA player gave an “invalid” fair catch signal on the play. The ball is dead once UCLA gains possession, and they should have been hit with a 5 yard delay of game penalty following the play. It was an invalid signal because you can’t call a fair catch once the kick hits the ground.

There is nothing with this rule that could ever be used to your advantage. Basically, the invalid signal just means that the receiving team can’t advance the ball, and will be hit with a delay of game if they try to.

You're pretty late on this aspect of the thread.. but not as late as Penn State was in addressing the Sandusky crimes.

 

[Erial_Lion]

You're pretty late on this aspect of the thread.

Lots of false info being thrown around, and/or speculation. Should be a pretty cut and dried call and trying to help clarify it...though not sure how going to review impacted their ability to throw the delay of game flag that should have been thrown (ie, can they throw the flag after the replay once it's been identified that a player did signal the fair catch).

 

[Kbee3]

You're pretty late on this aspect of the thread.. but not as late as Penn State was in addressing the Sandusky crimes.

So true.

 

[knightfan7]

Apologize if already addressed

The spirit of the fair catch is to protect the receiver of the ball from injury

It would seem wrong to allow it on an insides kick, particularly if the attempted kickoff was a squib along the ground, never really getting into the air much

If the existing rule allows a fair catch on any kick, imo it should be changed

As a side note
I always thought that the on sides kick was an exciting play
and I hate to see it taken away when all receiving teams just signal fair catch

If a kicker could pop it up, you'd have a player standing there waiting for the ball and get crushed while he waits? Seems that would be a hitting a defenseless player penalty.

 

[wheezer]

If a kicker could pop it up, you'd have a player standing there waiting for the ball and get crushed while he waits? Seems that would be a hitting a defenseless player penalty.

That would not be a decent on sides kick

You bounce it off the ground or squib it
because you try to make it as difficult as you can

 

[robcac26]

That would not be a decent on sides kick

You bounce it off the ground or squib it
because you try to make it as difficult as you can

You bounce it off the ground because otherwise they would just call a fair catch.