The kick-off following our first touchdown started me to wonder about the effect of the new fair catch rule on onside kicks. Stanford called for a fair catch on that kick-off but did not catch it. The ball was allowed to roll dead on the Stanford 18. Admittedly I have not read the new rule. But suppose that Cal managed to recover the ball at that point. Would it have been Cal's ball? Does signalling for a fair catch prevent the kicking team from recovering the ball after it goes 10 yards? If so, look for receiving teams in onside kick situations to always signal for a fair catch. That will be the end of onside kicks.

I believe the ball must travel inside the receiving team's 25 yard line in order to permit a fair catch on a kickoff. Accordingly, onside kicks are still possible.

New fair catch rule does not affect onside kicks or chance what happen if one doesn't catch the ball.

I believe what we saw in the Big Game was that Furd failed to catch the ball after signaling for a fair catch. The ball was still live, so if Cal had recovered, it would have been Cal's ball. BUT since Furd had signaled for a fair catch, they were not allowed to advance it after picking up the ball. That part of the rule HAS NOT changed with the new fair kick rule.

The new rule just gives the receiving team the ball at the 25 yard line on a fair catch inside the 25 yard line - which increases the incentives to call for a fair catch instead of returning a kickoff.

OK Thank-you. Have you read the rule?

The ball was simply allowed to roll dead without anyone touching it. If it would have been Cal's ball why was there no effort to recover it?

MugsVanSant said:

---

The ball was simply allowed to roll dead without anyone touching it. If it would have been Cal's ball why was there no effort to recover it?

---

It really was a strange play - simple answer is I don't know. For some reason I thought a Stanford player picked it up, but now I'm not sure.

I did just peruse the rule book again and there is nothing in the new fair catch rule that would prevent Cal from recovering the ball.

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/FR19.pdf

There is this rule (which is separate from the ball being automatically dead if it hits the ground in the endzone):

Quote:

---

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 deadball spot.

---

So it's conceivable that the refs ruled that it was dead because no one was attempting to secure it... but then that begs the question why was no player attempting to secure it, as players were nearby?

As for onsides kicks, players would obviously be trying to secure the ball, so that rule would not apply.

MugsVanSant said:

---

The ball was simply allowed to roll dead without anyone touching it. If it would have been Cal's ball why was there no effort to recover it?

---

An LSJU player picked it up, ran it past the 25, but the play was being whistled dead. It would have been Cal's ball if Cal had picked it up, it would not have been whistled dead even if it stopped, not until somebody from some team was down with it.

Cal8285 said:

---

MugsVanSant said:

---

The ball was simply allowed to roll dead without anyone touching it. If it would have been Cal's ball why was there no effort to recover it?

---

An LSJU player picked it up, ran it past the 25, but the play was being whistled dead. It would have been Cal's ball if Cal had picked it up, it would not have been whistled dead even if it stopped, not until somebody from some team was down with it.

---

Thanks, that's what I remembered. Can't advance a ball once the fair catch was signaled, even when it hits the ground - so once Furd had possession, I think it was supposed to be whistled over. Ball was brought back to the 17 or so, right?

ColoradoBear said:

---

Cal8285 said:

---

MugsVanSant said:

---

The ball was simply allowed to roll dead without anyone touching it. If it would have been Cal's ball why was there no effort to recover it?

---

An LSJU player picked it up, ran it past the 25, but the play was being whistled dead. It would have been Cal's ball if Cal had picked it up, it would not have been whistled dead even if it stopped, not until somebody from some team was down with it.

---

Thanks, that's what I remembered. Can't advance a ball once the fair catch was signaled, even when it hits the ground - so once Furd had possession, I think it was supposed to be whistled over. Ball was brought back to the 17 or so, right?

---

Correct.

As I recall the ball was blown dead after it stopped moving and nobody tried to recover it. Maybe the ref made a mistake. If the ref didn't make a mistake we did. Recovering that ball in the red zone would likely had led to a score.

MugsVanSant said:

---

As I recall the ball was blown dead after it stopped moving and nobody tried to recover it. Maybe the ref made a mistake. If the ref didn't make a mistake we did. Recovering that ball in the red zone would likely had led to a score.

---

You recall incorrectly. If you watch the kickoff with 45 seconds left in the first quarter, you'll see that the ball was blown dead when #20 of LSJU picked the ball up, well before it stopped moving. The referee announces that the ball will be placed where it was possessed.

Maybe the Cal players who were approaching could have been more aggressive towards the ball, even if they didn't know it couldn't be advanced, but I don't think they could have gotten to it before #20. It isn't like #20 let it sit on the ground. He knew he needed to get it. He probably didn't know he couldn't advance it. The whistle was quite instantaneous as soon as he picked it up. The refs called it correctly. MAYBE Cal could have hit #20 faster, but the ball was dead as soon as he had possession, so unless they could hit him after he touched it but before he got possession (or got there a lot faster and hit him in time to prevent him from having a decent chance to possess it) he was going to pick it up, and it would be dead.