Cutups of Uncommon Rules or Plays

So let me get this right...

1) Team A is kicking the field goal with LOS being the 3 yard line on 4th down
2) The 1st person who touches the ball is someone on Team A but behind the LOS
3) Ball then rolls beyond the LOS and is touched by Team B
4) Ball is recovered by Team A beyond the LOS, but not in the endzone
5) Possession given to Team B but at the previous LOS, not where the ball was recoverd by Team A


If that is the scenario, then I think they got it right assuming the ball was recovered on the 3 yard line. I'm pretty sure had the ball landed behind the LOS it is considered a fumble and can be advanced by anyone. Since it hits Team A and I assume is still in-flight when it crosses the LOS it is now treated as a punt. The defensive player touching it makes it a "muff" which is recoverable by the kicking team, but since it was recovered behind the yard-to-gain, the 4th down still counts and so it is a turnover on downs...

However, a 20 yard field goal makes me think it was already at the 3 yard-line, so how did the ball go past the LOS and get touched then recovered by the kicking team and recovered at the original LOS. 
That seems like not a lot of fun to sort out. 

I think you all have it wrong.

From the description, it would've been very hard for the kick to not have been on or past the goal line and yet beyond the expanded neutral zone. The team A player's having first touched the ball behind the line is immaterial unless he added new impetus to a ball which had already stopped forward motion, which is unlikely. Therefore the status of the ball is still a kick by team A at that point, and although described as having popped into the air, would probably still be ruled a "low scrimmage kick" by officials. The expanded neutral zone extends 2 yards past team B's line, so the likelihood was that the B player's touching of the ball was ruled a touching of a low scrimmage kick in the expanded neutral zone. That player's "swatting" the ball might be considered illegally batting it -- have to see it -- but would probably be considered just the legal act of blocking a kick. So when a player of team A recovered it, the down continued, and if it was 4th down and he made it dead, the series ended short of the line to gain, so first down to the opponents.

Wolverine, how high would you say the ball popped into the air? Enough to get players looking up and waiting for it to come down? And would you say the player of team B who swatted it did so while the ball was clearly beyond the neutral zone? Those are the conditions that would be required for the expanded neutral zone and "low kick" provision to no longer apply, and then have it be like a receiving team player's first touching a kick on his side of the line, and could also be ruled illegal batting.

It does "look like that" from here.

If I'm coaching this situation for the defense, I'm not yelling "poison", because with the ball coming down so close to the line, you want to gain possession so the other team doesn't have a chance to do so and run the ball in.  However, a 1-hand swat of the ball like that is a singularly useless play, no good can come of it.  So the players need to know that if they're watching a ball come down near them, this is not a situation in which they can block a kick, but if it's close to the line they may have to make like a soccer goalie, a forward at a rugby line-out, or an Australian rules player, go up for it, and come down with it in both hands.  If an opponent looks like he's going to win the battle for the ball in the air, then you should not try to spoil his ball by getting some fingers on it, but just tackle him when he comes down.