Quote:
Originally Posted by whitehat52
Why not have a state interpreter refer this play to the NFHS and have them make a determination. This will settle the argument once and for all. I am in the camp that believes this a previous spot enforcement.
The officials that believe this is still a PSK foul seem to be hanging their hat on the Redding ruling that isn't exactly on point. The Redding interpretation is ignoring a rule (2-16-2h-5) and a fundamental (IV Kicks-General 7). Redding even though very helpful is not an official ruling and cannot be taken as gospel.
Until we get a ruling from a person of authority, I can't ignore 2-16-2h-5 and the fundamental. Hopefully we can get this resolved before the season is too much older.
|
By invoking the provision of PSK about whether K will be next to put the ball in play, you're assuming that they will. That's the focus of the discussion: you can't just assume you're right.
The Reddings ruling neither ignores the rule nor the fundamental. Interpreted properly, the rule and fundamental both support the idea that K cannot put the ball in play after they commit first touching.
You've also ignored the point buried in my long post: first touching is just like a foul committed by the team not in possession. Once it happens, that team cannot be next to put the ball in play.
To treat this as "previous spot enforcement" is to use first touching to offset the hold. There is absolutely no provision in the rules to offset first touching. It is inadvisable to make up rules.