Quote:
Originally Posted by UpNorthRef
"Because in the OP with a turnover, you also have first touching. Why is one case of first touching "garden variety" and another ignored?"
Because the play is over when K secured possession of the kick in example 2. In the original play there was only first touching and the play continued.
|
So what if the play continues? R still has the right to put the ball into play at the spot of first touching, even if they subsequently possess the ball and fumble it. The only time R gives up this right is a) if R commits a penalty after touching the ball or b) any live ball penalty is accepted.
Do we all agree that in the OP, if R did not foul, R could take the ball at the spot of first touching from Rule 6-2-5?
I think the confusion is the 'live ball penalty accepted' part, is that right? You are wanting to say the holding by R negates the first touching, which then makes 'K the next to put the ball in play' which negates the requirements for a PSK foul. I believe that is the confusion, which is why I put in the second example.
If you follow this logic in the second 'garden variety' example, you would say that we are accepting the foul, negating K's first touching. K has possession of the ball so we don't have a PSK foul. This is absurd. The real answer is that R has the right to put the ball into play at the spot of first touching, so K will not be the next to put the ball into play. All of the criteria for a PSK foul is met, so the holding foul will be penalized using PSK foul enforcement. Now look at the OP. The same answer applies. Exact same answer.
My request is that instead of blowing off the alternate example by stating it is 'garden variety,' that you explain why the hold is enforced as PSK foul and USE THE SAME LOGIC to explain why the OP is not a PSK foul.