Play take from POD 5-3:
K's ball 4/12 from R-45. K8 punt is rolling on the R-16 when an IW is blown :( R76 blocked K84 in the back on the R-22 before the IW.

Ruling given: If penality is declines, the IW during the loose ball dictiates replay of down. (I agree!)
If penality is accepted, the fould negates the IW and results in a PREVIOUS SPOT enforcement.

If I read this right, K gets the ball back for 4/2 from R-35? This seems to me to be a tripple -whammy on R due to an official mistake. K gets the ball back (after kicking it away. I thought PSk eliminated this messed up thinking), they get the 10 yards for the block in back (ok but it is #2 against R) AND get a chance for a 2 yd plunge for 1/10. Seems to me a huge hit for R all for an official mistake.

Why, then, does the penality negate the IW? It would seem to me that if accepted, either PSK should coe into play and R keeps ball but looses 10 yrd (1/2 distance) OR you replay down w/ NO yardage markoff.

Please clear me up on this .

Boy am I happy to know that I was not the only one confused! With the new and improved clarification on PSK from NF...Clarification has been made that a post-scrimmage kick situation begins with the snap ...this play is just as clear as mud. :confused:

[/QUOTE] I thought PSk eliminated this messed up thinking), they get the 10 yards for the block in back (ok but it is #2 against R) AND get a chance for a 2 yd plunge for 1/10. Seems to me a huge hit for R all for an official mistake.

Why, then, does the penality negate the IW? It would seem to me that if accepted, either PSK should coe into play and R keeps ball but looses 10 yrd (1/2 distance) OR you replay down w/ NO yardage markoff.

Please clear me up on this .
[/B][/QUOTE]

No PSK in this situation. To have a PSK enforcement, R must be in possession when the down ends. The down ended when the IW happened and the ball was loose a that moment.

REPLY: Just one clarification on PSK...there is no requirement that R be in player/team possession when the down ends. The requirements is that K <b><u>not</u></b> be in team possession when the down ends. Those two things are not quite synonymous and the Fed goes out of its way to confuse the issue. And whether or not the ball is loose has no practical bearing on whether PSK applies.

There are a few situations that could yield nasty results due to an IW. If it was 4th and 2 instead of 12 late in a tied game - yikes!

I think one of the worst is if K was kicking from his own end zone and he bobbled the snap and needed to scramble. If a teammate holds for example out in the field of play and the IW sounds before the kick is made the officials pretty much dictated a safety. This is a running play enforced from the end of the run. Double yikes!!!

What defensive team would turn down that penalty? I think there should be something put in the IW rule that would disallow this kind of anomaly from happening.

I would try to find a way to say the foul occured before the kicker got control of the ball so it would be enforced as a loose ball play from the previous spot.

OK. So now what....
 

What is the correct ruling on this play?

explain PLEASE the logic of the foul (if accepted) negates the IW and K keeps the ball 4/2 in this situation as it results in a previous spot enforcement.

How woudl you explain this to a coach of R? If I am the coach, there is a good chance I would be tossed out of the game because of the GROSS injustice in this play.

This is a PSK foul correct? They, why/how does K get the ball back due to an officials mess up?

From where did you get this?

I want to see their justification. I would agree that the choices are to decline the foul, thereby replaying the down at the previous spot (no foul yardage, it was declined.
Or, to accept the foul, which is a PSK foul, ignore the IW rules, and enforce from, in this case, the spot the ball became dead. Result B 1&10 from the B8

This was the Play of the Day for 5-3-04. I have sent 2 e-mails to them asking for a justification, but no reply .

It just does not make ANY sence at all!

Can anyone from NF help on this. Usually, if POD make a mistake they will own up to it the next day or so.

*NOT* PSK
 

I don't have a full NFHS rule book with me to try and sort out all the details and quote rules but what I do know from NFHS supplemental information and the list of new rule revisions is that although the *POSSIBILITY* of a PSK situation begins at the snap, you cannot have a PSK foul unless Team R ends up in possession of the ball (this is the first point of a 4-Point checklist they gave to determine whether you have a PSK situation in a PowerPoint presention on PSK for 2003). In this case they do not, the ball is loose at the time of the IW.

From that point (I wish I could look it up) it seems as though you would have to enforce from the previous spot since K was last in possession.

So...
- K has to get the ball because this is not a PSK situation because R never got possession.

- The ball has to go back to the previous spot because the ball was loose at the time of the IW.

- R has to be penalized for committing a foul.

Given all that, I think you have to give K the ball, 4/2 from R-35.

I can completely agree that the IW hurts R in this situation but the enforcement is correct based on the rules as they are written. To enforce it any other way is to ignore the rule book (and also would require some mind reading on the part of the official - if there's an IW and the play is not allowed to continue how do you *KNOW* R would have gained possession of the loose ball and not K - somehow?)

Anyway, there's my take on it. I think the trick to this play is that PSK does not come in to effect based on the way things played out. If it had been allowed to continue, most likely R would have gained possession and then it WOULD have been a PSK foul... but that requires speculation.

-Sean---

I see no reason this should be enforced any differently under NFHS rules than how it is handled under NCAA rules.

That NCAA ruling is the Previous Spot is the enforcement spot and the ball must be returned to that spot and either rekicked because it was not in player possession at the time of the IW. The foul against team-B, is enforced at the point. If Team-A get s first down out of this, then that just too bad for team-B.

An IW in essesnce negates what would have been a PSK enforcment foul.

Bottom line is IW are bad for everyone including the official that keeps the whistle in is mouth or is in a bigh hurry to kill a play.

I agree with you Theisey and should have mentioned that before... the enforcement from the previous spot may hurt R... but not strictly enforcing the rules hurts K.

Neither team deserves to be penalized when the bottom line is that the real problem is the official who jumped the gun with the whistle.

-Sean---

Re: *NOT* PSK
 

Sean, sorry but you are incorrect on both your points here. First the rule does not state that R must be in possesion at the end of the down for PSK to apply. It says that K shall not be in possession. Take the kick that goes OB, into the EZ, or becomes dead in the field when not in player possession. ALL still qualify for PSK rules even though by you are saying that R never got possession since the ball was still loose in all these cases.

Next, the team possession changes under PSK when the ball is kicked. See 'Football Fundamentals' I.3 on page 66 of the 2003 rulebook

Re: Re: *NOT* PSK
 

Thant was my point wiht my last post given the PSK. K surrerndered possesion whenthey kicked the ball & it crossed the ENZ. Yes, I agree that bad items will occur wiht an over-zellious official.

BUT, HOW DOES THIS PLAY GET ENFORCED? Is it a previous spot enforcement, or is it truly a PSK enforcement if accepted?

Re: Re: *NOT* PSK
 

REPLY: Jim, I've heard that the Federation is changing FF I.3 to the way it was before. There was never any intention to change the definition of 'team possession.' According to what I've heard, the definition of team possession--as written--holds for scrimmage kicks, i.e. K is still in team possession during the kick. PSK is just an exception (oops...can I say that in Federation??) to normal possession enforcement rules.

sm_bbcoach:

Like I said before, I unfortunately don't have the rule book in front of me to look it up or quote and I may be misinformed but just so you know you're not getting my own personal interpretation...

My assertion that R must be in possession at the end of the play is taken from the Post Scrimmage Kick 2003 PowerPoint presentation provided by the NFHS and posted on their web site at:

http://www.nfhs.org/scriptcontent/va...content_id=360

As far as I could determine, there are no changes in 2004 regarding PSK enforcement. Just clarification of the existing rules in 2-16-2g, 10-2-1b and 10-2-2.

I agree that if the Team R possession thing is not a factor then R should get the ball at the spot the ball was blown dead and the penalty enforced from there.

But, unless they "revised themselves" somewhere else along the line (or contradict themselves in other materials), this information provided by the NFHS states plainly that R must be in possession at the end of the play for a PSK situation to exist.

Maybe the NFHS isn't even clear on the rule.

-Sean---

I guess we'll just have to wait and see what they do.
We got the opposite answer from K.C. "The wording will change to make it more clear that team possession changes when the ball is kicked."

How much you want to bet that the new wording will still be ambiguous???

Or They do nothing. We're still waiting for answers to questions from 2 years ago..... even with reminders.

Sean, I think where the confusion lies is that yes the PowerPoint presentation changes the wording from "K is not in possession of the ball" (in the rule) to "When R has the ball at the end of the down".
There really is no difference in the outcome of these two wordings. First note that they are talking ONLY about team possession, not player possession. And they are talking about the final result of the play (barring, of course, any non-PSK penalties, IWs, etc.). The final result of most kicks leaves R in possession of the ball at the end of the down even though they may not have had player possession during the down.

But again, hopefully they will recognize the problems with the current wordings, and their "clarifications", and change things to be at least translucent.... we should hope to get to "clear" with K.C.??

I see your point Jim S. I think that's too much grey area for my mind to comprehend.

Under normal circumstances a loose ball belongs to the team that last possessed it, correct? Ignoring the PSK question for a minute, that would give the ball back to K in this play.

Is there something in the PSK rules that creates an exception to this?

I started writing a series questions about the possible implications of this grey area but it just started making my head spin.

Can anyone answer definitively when Team R is considered "in possession" of the ball in a PSK situation?

-Sean---

Sean, your premise about loose ball possession is correct. A loose ball is always in team possession of the last player that possessed it. Unless, per FF1-3, PSK applies.

Now if it stay the same that will stand (or maybe become clearer). If they change it, as Bob says he was told they will, then team possession may not change until a B player possesses the ball, or the ball becomes dead by rule, (note that requiring player possession will require changes in the PSK definition and/or enforcement) or SOMETHING else as yet unknown, or. like some FED changes over the years, ALL of the above ............

I think that the easiest way to resolve this in keeping with the prinicples behind PSK is to have possession change when the ball is kicked. Any further change of possession either takes away or restores the PSK situation. This also resolves any question about which team is in possession when the ball becomes dead when no player has possessed the ball after the kick.

The easiest wasy to remember is this:
Team-K is considered to be in possession of the ball when the down over if Team-R had touched the ball and Team K has recovered it.
PSK enforcement no longer would apply.
Even a team-K first touching will not alter that fact.

Forget this notion that possession changes as soon as the ball as been kick or crossed the NZ. Those were the worst choice of interpretion words and were freely used last year by NF or various state intrepretors. The changes/clarifications for this year should make that clearer.

REPLY: Another easy way to remember it is to determine who is next entitled to put the ball in play by snap (or free kick). That's a reasonable definition of "possession" for PSK purposes.

Also, I think I mentioned this on another board...I've heard that the Fed is retracting that "unless PSK applies" condition from Fundamental I.3. Their intention was never to redefine the definition of team possession.

[Edited by Bob M. on May 13th, 2004 at 12:43 PM]

OK, talked with someone who has the 2004 rulebook. Bob is correct. Thy did remove the Football Fundamentals I-3 wording (in italics) that addresses loose balls being in the team possession of the last player to be in possession unless post scrimage kick applies.
They also took out of II-3 the words "crossed the expanded neutral zone".

I still think that this leaves the question open. When DOES possession change under the FED rules?
CAN we have PSK on plays where the ball goes OB, or into the EZ, or becomes dead on the field of play without having been in player possession after the kick? In all these cases Kis still in team possession at the end of the down. If possession does not change until the new series is awarded, then in these cases PSK would not apply and the answer for the POD play would be correct as given.
In other words to have PSK, at some time during the down, R would have had to be in player possession of the ball. Is this the intent of FED PSK? I thought it was to not give the ball back to K for fouls committed by R after K has intentionally given the ball over (kicked).

[Edited by Jim S on May 15th, 2004 at 04:55 PM]

This is my whole point. I believe that FED's intention is to say that possesion has changed when K kicks the ball and it crosses the NZ (even though the wording is not there). That makes sence to me (meaning NF inteneded something else)!

With eveything I have read and thought about, I would have ruled the way many have: B ball 1/10 after a play like this. I am not convinved and would have major trouble convincing R's coach that K sould get the ball back for a 4/2 play due to an officials whistle on a loose ball.

NOW, to muddy the waters even more: lets say the whistle was NOT an IW, but the ball was on the ground untouched by either team. R got away from the ball (posion) and K decided for what ever reason NOT to down the ball. Finaly, an official blows his whistle to end the play. How do rule on this. PSK??? Mark off the penality and B ball; or do you retudn to previous spot and mark it off under old rules/thinking and give K the ball for a 4th down play???

This doesn't muddy the water at all. When no player is going to go near the ball, the official will end the play after a second or two. This is basic stuff here.

The team next to snap the ball is team-B, they are the team on possession now. Enforce team-B's PSK foul from the spot of the foul or from where the kick ended, that being the spot where the ball is blown dead.


I'm not even going to try to address the part of your comment I cut out as to what the NF intentions are regarding when possession changes on a kick.
I'm sticking to my own thoughts as its not determined until the play is over. Apply PSK criteria at that point.

[Edited by Theisey on May 16th, 2004 at 10:59 AM]

To have a PSK enforcement, you must have a spot where the kick ends. This could be where R possesses the kick, where the kick goes out of bounds untouched by K, the spot where K first touches the kick, or the spot where the kick is on the ground motionless and no player attempts to secure possession. If an IW happens prior to any of the above, the PSK enforcement spot has not been established so the down must be replayed per 4-2-3a.

I believe that this is the NF's intent even though they do a poor job of explaining and their Power Point slide show states that the ball must be in R's possession when the down ends.

But we do have a spot where the kick ends. Acc. to 2-23-2, a kick ends when a player gains possession or when the ball becomes dead by rule. When the IW sounded, the ball became dead (4-2-2j) and, therefore, the kick ended. Looking at 4-2-3a, we see that in order to replay the down from the original LOS, the foul must be declined. IMO, if K decides to accept the foul, which meets PSK requirements, they are still essentially content with giving up the ball, and it should be enforced as such. You can't have your cake & eat it too. ;)

The other thing that bothered me about the above post was "the spot where K first touches the kick". A kick never ends by first touching or a muff. The only thing that comes close is when a ball at rest is touched ("downed") by K, but anything short of this type of touching by either team does not end the kick.

Hope that helps somebody, although I'm still not sure what NF's stance is..

J Ransom

REPLY: Two points...(1) Personally IMHO, I'd disregard that 2003 PowerPoint presentation that the Fed has on their website re: PSK. It includes errors and misleading statements. (2) I believe that the root cause of the confusion is that the Fed's definition of team possession only references a live ball. It presents no concept of how we determine possession of a ball that has just become dead. And...it ain't as easy as saying it's in possession of the team that last had possession of the live ball. I have some of my own thoughts, but the Fed rule book provides no solid guidance.

THE NF TAKE ON THIS
 

I have recieved this from POD( who in turn got it directly from NF) I hope this clears up the possesion problme on this:


Here is what I got from our NF contact. Let me know if this helps:

One of the requirements for PSK is for K not to be in possession of the
ball
at the end of the down (10-4-3e). Rule 2-32-2 states a team is always
in
possession of the ball, including the interval after loss of possession
until team possession changes by a member of the other team gaining
player
possession.

In this situation, the IW was blown before team possession had changed.
The
ball was in possession of team K (until R recovers the kick); therefore,
no
PSK situation. When PSK does not apply, you use the regular all but one
theory, that is foul during a loose ball, the basis spot is the previous
spot. If the foul was before the IW, then enforce the foul.

Makes the ruling a little inconsistant from the ball crossing the ENZ, but does clear this play and enforcement up. I am wodering about kicks into the EZ, and kicks out of bounds, but that will jar another debate.

So am I getting it right if I summarize by saying that (as Bob M. and a couple of different NFHS souces have said) a Team R player MUST gain possession of the ball after a kick in order for Team Possession to be granted to R and for PSK to apply?

That is to say, Team R doesn't automatically gain possession just because Team K kicks it away. PSK doesn't define possession, only the spot of enforcement for fouls.

And that then means that the orginal ruling given was correct but if R *had* reached the ball before the IW then PSK enforcement *would* apply and R would get the ball at the succeeding spot minus the penalty yards.

It that the gist of it?

-Sean---

(P.S.: Maybe it's just me, but I think saying that "the foul negates the IW" is misleading or at least confusing.)

Re: THE NF TAKE ON THIS
 

Nothing to wonder about nor debate here either.

Kicks into the receiving teams EZ are dead the moment the ball breaks the plane of the goal line.
It is now 'R's ball. If PSK foul exists, the end of kick is the R-20 yardline.

Balls kicked OOB are 'R's ball no matter what down and no matter where the ball goes OOB. If PSK foul exists, the end of kick is the OOB spot.

Re: Re: THE NF TAKE ON THIS
 

You are right. I forgot my :) on this representing my making fun of NF and there way of creating mud out of sparkling / cloudy waters.