Quote:
Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee
K's ball 4th and 10 at K's 30. K punts the ball and they only had 6 men on the line of scrimmage, illegal formation. The ball travels downfield to R's 20 where its caught bt R30. During the kick, R55 holds K10 at R's 40. R 30 runs the ball back to midfield. During his runback, R72 blocks K17 in the back at R's 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'm going to go ahead and cut to the chase here. First time I saw this play I said that R would need to decline the foul against K, and that then K would get a choice of whether to take the PSK foul (better deal) or to take the block in the back foul which was not a PSK foul. But that, of course, they couldn't have both of them. But then I did a little bit of reading.
Would someone who is really smart please look at rule 10-2-1 and then look at 10-2-3. And please tell me why I'm going crazy over this. I now sorta feel like the play I described above is just a DOUBLE FOUL, plain and simple. No options for anybody, just a double foul. When you read 10-2-1, it says ALL fouls committed by R are PSK fouls.... In the above example, both fouls are not PSK fouls, and I'm thinking that fact makes this a double foul with no options for either team.
Just so you know, there is a play in the reddings guide just like this. Its on page 173 play#30. And reddings does not say that its a double foul. But here's a news flash for everyone. Reddings is not ALWAYS correct. I've seen a few plays in that book that are just plain WRONG. But still, I'd love to hear some good intelligent conversation about why this is not a double foul.
|
One sure could read the rule that way. I may get crucified for this but MY common sense says that they didn't mean all fouls must meet the criteria for PSK fouls; rather, the fouls must all occur during or after the kick.
If either foul had occured on it's own, R would have kept the ball after enforcement by declining K's foul. just because it is a multiple foul situation shouldn't negate that.