Question Regarding Kick-ins and Kick-outs

Canadian Football has to be the most complicated code of inflated bladder team field sports on the planet. Nothing illustrates this more than the kick-in, kick-out play we saw on Friday night.

I love it!

I'm confused on a certain point though. Let's say the return team (Team B) receives a missed field goal in the end zone and attempts to punt it out. Before the ball clears the end zone it strikes a field goal kicking team (Team A) player in the end zone. Team B recovers the ball in the end zone and is tackled in the end zone.

What is the result of that play? Is a single awarded to the field goal kicking team?

Possession in the field of play is deemed to be any touching of the ball with the exceptions of contact with the ball causing a fumble and contacted kicks behind the line of scrimmage.

The contact in the goal area by team A in the example is neither of those. The team B kick doesn't have a line of scrimmage and the subsequent team A contact would constitute change of possession in the field of play.

Having said that, is recovery by team B now a single or touchback?

I think it would be a safety touch with Team B getting 2 points and Team A having to kick off but I'm not sure.

I'm gonna say the that Team A gets the single still...

To further clarify what I think (and could be wrong) only way two points are getting on is if somehow Team A goes down with the ball in their end zone at the other end of the field...

Where is Ro when you need him?

It can't be a single because the ball wasn't being kicked into the endzone at that point - it was being kicked out. I'm pretty sure it would be a safety if Team B recovered and a TD if it was recovered by Team A.

yes, since the ball never went past the goal line and stayed in the endzone when the Toronto player attempted to kick the ball the 2nd time and if an argo had fallen on the ball, it would be a single.

it would ONLY be a safety if a player for Toronto had possession and then went out of the endzone and then back into the endzone (on his own)

Crazy scenario either way! And this is why I love the CFL.

But when a player is tackled in their own endzone it's a safety. Why would it be a single if the punt is blocked? It should be treated the same as any other endzone punt attempt at that point. I think in the Argos-Als game the last kick attempt by the Argos was a dribbled ball because the Argo player didn't pick it up and kick it - he just kicked it along the ground IIRC. If he had picked up the ball and punted it and it was knocked down by the Als and the Argos recovered it I don't see how that could be a single.

well it wasn't a dribbled ball. it doesn't necessarily have to be picked up and kicked in order for it to be considered a punt.

if the player intentionally kicks the ball with the purpose of moving it forward, it is a kick!

you cannot have a safety if the ball goes into the endzone.

the ball has to be in possession first OUTSIDE the endzone and then go Into the endzone after and then tackled in order to be considered a Safety.

see the ball was punted back into the endzone.. and the toronto player failed to get it back out of the endzone..

if he makes intentional contact with the ball in the endzone he is considered to be in possession of it last.

I'm pretty sure it would be a single. The fact that Team A (original kicking team) happens to make contact with the ball on the kick-out attempt does not constitute a possession change. Otherwise, it would be called a touchdown. I don't think this particular scenario is specifically dealt with in the rules, although the following rule would probably be applied:

[b]RULE 4 - SCRIMMAGE[/b] [b]SECTION 6 – SERIES OF DOWNS[/b] [b]Article 3 – Continuity Of Downs[/b] The continuity of downs is interrupted: (c) When the ball definitely passes into possession of opponents. Touching the ball by opponents is not possession.
While it doesn't actually deal with this scenario, it does deal with change of possession, which is key in this case.

A few other similar scenarios:

If the Team A player had actually taken possession of the ball and then fumbled the ball into the endzone, and then Team B had recovered it and been tackled in the endzone, there would be no points awarded.

If the Team A player had actually taken possession of the ball and then fumbled the ball, and Team B had recovered it and then re-entered the endzone before being tackled there, it would be a safety touch.

The scenario I'm not sure of is if the Team A player had made contact with the ball and knocked it into the endzone, and then Team B had recovered it in the endzone and been tackled there. I'm guessing that no points would be awarded, as Team B had successfully gotten the ball out of the endzone.

it's a punt so it would just be like a regular punt.. and it would be a single point

what if, when the argos kicked the ball out of their endzone, and duvall caught the ball, had the argos tackled him without giving him 5 yards?

the game isn't ending on a penalty, because the game would be going to overtime.

so would the penalty be applied in the OT, or would it be 1st and 10 alouettes with 0 seconds on the clock, and thus, an easy FG for duvall?

Yes. As far as I know.

Let's relive this as it may have answers:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aqJbLDu9l2Q#t=6m15s

Bingo... I was too lazy to read through the book. That's why I asked the question in the first place. My misconception came with possession by touching the ball. The cited rule clearly shows touching the ball to not constitute change of possession in bounds.

That does make it counter-intuitive though that you can be the last to touch a ball before it goes out of bounds and win possession this way but as far as its concerned with change of possession in the field of play, it means nothing.

I always thought touching the ball and change of possession were synonymous in Canadian football because of the ability to win possession by being the last team to touch a live ball before it goes out of bounds.

So there shouldn't be any confusion from my original scenario. As far as the rouge goes, the ball was kicked in by Team A and at no point was it successfully brought out of the endzone or possessed by Team A in the endzone so a single would be awarded. The knock down of Team B's kick-out keeping the ball in the end zone did not constitute a possession change which muddied my thinking on whether a rouge would have counted afterwards or not.

umm if they tackled Duvall without giving him 5 yards, Montreal would get the football right there, up half the distance. 1st down

and the Als would have 1 last play. which would give him another chance to get a field goal..

WAIT A SECOND...

I actually looked at the book this time and found this:

Rule1: Conduct Of The Game Section 3: Possession ...If a kicked ball other than a kickoff is legally touched by a player of either team, such touching shall be deemed to be possession.
So with respect to continuity of downs, touching the ball is not considered possession, but legally touching a ball on kicks other than kickoffs (such as the kick of Team B in my example) shall be deemed possession?

What about batting the ball out of bounds like we see often on onside kickoffs? That's change of possession but the possession section of the rulebook says it isn't.

Regardless, the scenario I originally depicted seems to meet the requirements of the definition of the rouge:

Rule 3: Scoring Section 2: Definitions Article 4: Single Point or Rouge

If the ball is kicked into the Goal Area by an opponent, a rouge is scored:
b when the ball becomes dead in possession of a team in its own Goal Area or,[/b]
(2) when the ball touches or crosses the Dead Line or a Sideline in Goal, and
touches the ground, a player or some object beyond these lines.


Whether or not possession can change in the endzone between teams by touching the ball after a kick seems not to matter so long as condition (1) is met.

if you don't understand all the rules of the game, yea it can be a little confusing.

in the field of play you must have possession, meaning actually holding the ball in your hands or cradling it and being in control of it.

but on a live ball or fumble/kickoff.. you gain possession either by catching it or knocking the ball out of bounds with your hands or body only.. but not your foot! hitting it with your foot is considered a dribbled kick and the ball would go to the opposition.

Actually, the rule about accepted penalties applies at the end of any quarter, not just the game.

Here is the actual rule from the 2010 Rule book:

[b]RULE 8 – APPLICATION OF PENALTIES[/b] [b]SECTION 7 - FOULS WHICH OCCUR ON THE LAST PLAY OF A QUARTER[/b] If in any period time expires during a play in which a foul occurs the non-offending team may: (a) accept the penalty, in which case the team entitled to possession shall be required to put the ball into play or, (b) decline the penalty and accept the play as it terminated to end the period or, (c) elect to have the penalty applied on the first play of the following period, if the foul was a Major Foul. NOTE: For the purpose of this rule, an Offside Pass shall not be considered to be a foul. Should the play be terminated by an official’s whistle prior to the ball being put into play, the penalty shall be applied and the period extended for another play.
So in the scenario you describe, Montreal would have been given the ball where Duval caught the ball plus the 5 or 15 yards for the no yards penalty. As you say, an easy (easier?) field goal than the first attempt, although I can't remember exactly where Duval was when he caught the ball; I'm assuming he had moved towards the goal line somewhat, although maybe not.

I think that was another one of Leon McQuay's goofs. He had fumbled the ball near the sidelines, and instead of bending down and batting it out of bounds, he kicked it out. Instant turnover.

I saw the Possession rule as well, but felt that it would not apply in the endzone. Otherwise any contact in the enzone by the offence would be an instant touchdown, even if they never gained control of the ball.

The problem is that this particular scenario is not specifically described, and therefore it becomes a question of the intent of the rule. I think cflisthebest's explanation sums it up pretty well.

It is a single.
If the ball is touched after it crossed back into the field( say the 5 yard line) and bounces into the endzone and is rcovered by team b...its a touchback