|
If the Fed addresses these situations, I think they will conclude that PSK enforcement does apply, particularly when you consider the philosophy underlying PSK enforcement in the first place.
The basic premise underlying PSK enforcement is that, after making a conscious decision to surrender possession of the ball by a scrimmage kick, the kicking team should not realize the "gift" of a PSK penalty by the receiving team and a possible first down. I think you can see this philosophy at work in the revision of the case play on the NFHS website concerning the double foul scenario (Situation 13). Although the rulebook is ambiguous (as has been thoroughly discussed on all of the boards), this philosophy also is inherent in the requirements that a PSK foul must occur after the kick has crossed the neutral zone and the kick must end beyond the neutral zone. While the kick is behind the neutral zone, the kicking team can advance it and it may not be fair to say that the kicking team made an irrevocable decision to surrender possession of the ball. Therefore, it would be inconsistent with the PSK concept to enforce a penalty occurring after an inadvertant whistle that otherwise meets the PSK requirements against the receiving team from the previous spot and give the kicking team a "windfall." If the kicking team wants to accept the penalty and trump the inadvertant whistle, then enforce from the PSK spot. Otherwise, rekick.
|