Quote:
Originally posted by SoGARef
Quote:
Originally posted by PiggSkin
Quote:
Originally posted by SoGARef
...
1) Is the foul by R beyond the expanded neutral zone? Yes, we have 12 R team members on the field during the play. The way the play is described leads me to believe that all 12 participated so we have an IP foul.
...
|
No, the foul is not beyond the expanded neutral zone... There are players all over the field, some within the ENZ, and some not... There is no single spot of the foul for this call...
If you disagree, then tell me where the spot of the foul is...
|
OK, we have some of R's players attempted to get on their side of the neutral zone when the foul occurs. That makes the first element of PSK enforcement false. Therefore, there would be no PSK enforcement, you would still have an IP foul that would be enforced from the previous spot.
Remember, that all three elements of the PSK must be true for you to have a PSK enforcement. It's really rather simple when you break down the rule to its basic elements.
I apologize for pulling out the IRAC (issue, rule, analysis, conclusion) breakdown that I was taught in law school, but it really does help to understand a situation.
|
The point of this there are 12 on the field at the snap and thus an IP. With the way teams GENERALLY line up you have 1 deep returner and then the rest on the line at the snap. There may be 1 other a little bit off the line but most teams have 10 on the line (or 11 in this case).
As stated before, you do not have a spot on this type of foul. The rule book also clearly states this is a previous spot foul and with that, there is no exception to PSK for this foul. While I agree that the changes the fed made this year to PSK, it could be looked at as PSK. However they have not released anything written on this saying it is PSK thus I will stick to enforcing per the current written IP rule.