Quote:
Originally Posted by BoomerSooner
I believe this is a situation under which the penalty would be "declined by rule". Here is my reasoning for why:
1. The illegal kicking foul would be enforced under the post-scrimmage kick enforcement procedure as it meets all of the criteria for PSK enforcement. a. The foul didn't occur during a try, successful FG or extra period.
b. The ball had crossed the neutral zone.
c. The foul occurred prior to the end of the kick.
d. B would be next to snap the ball. 2. Under this enforcement, the situation is treated as though B was in possession of the ball at the time of the foul. As such the foul would not cause them to lose possession of the ball.
3. Under PSK enforcement, the post-scrimmage kick spot would be the basic spot and the penalty enforced from that spot. This point is more for informative purposes and not material to my line of thinking here.
4. Typically an untimed down would be required following an accepted penalty, however we have 2 scenarios that could follow and both of which show why the penalty would be declined by rule. a. B is trailing A - an untimed down would benefit B, and not only would it be counter-intuitive to "reward" B for the illegal kick, A would without fail decline the penalty knowing the result is game over.
b. A is trailing B (the situation outlined in the OP) - while an untimed down would force B to snap the ball, I believe there isn't any intent to require B to snap the ball under these circumstances. The aspect of this that I'm missing is the rule reference that doesn't require B to snap the ball on an untimed down. I'm pretty sure it is in there somewhere, but withstanding being wrong on that point, I think this outlines why the penalty is declined by rule in this case. |
You're way overthinking this, Boomer.
In both NFHS and NCAA when a live ball foul is accepted and the penalty does not involve a loss of down, the period will be extended for one play if time expired during the down.
Tony wouldn't this be a PSK foul in NFHS?