[mbyron]

6-2-5 states (in part): "The right of R to take the ball at [the] spot of first
touching by K is canceled if R touches the kick and thereafter during the down
commits a foul or if the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down."

This claim is ambiguous. It could mean:
(1) R forfeits the right to the SPOT when they foul, or
(2) R forfeits the right to the BALL and the spot when they foul.

I was taught that (1) is correct: once K commits first touching, R will be next to put the ball in play, no matter what. First touching is a violation, and the "penalty" is to give the ball to R, usually at the spot of first touching.

The only reason R would NOT get the ball at that spot is that some other penalty is enforced (or R takes the result of the play, thus effectively "declining" the "penalty" for first touching). And that's exactly what I read in 6-2-5.

So if during a scrimmage kick K commits first touching, then R recovers the kick, then R fouls, then R fumbles, and K recovers, we should have a non-PSK foul by R, but R keeps the ball because of the first touching. There's no double foul because K has not fouled (only violated); so R keeps the right to the ball even though they lose the right to the spot of first touching.

In that case: what's the basic spot? We enforce the penalty for R's foul from the basic spot under all but one, right? Another version of the case puts R's foul before R's recovery: then the correct interpretation of 6-2-5 will determine whether the foul is a PSK foul.

And: does anyone defend interpretation (2) above, or have I been taught correctly?