4th down, R is strugging to get the proper number of players on the field.

With players still running on and off the fied, the ball is snapped.

BJ determines there are 12 receivers in on the play, illegal participation.

Is this PSK or not?

I haven't looked it up yet, so I thought I'd ask before I did. I'll tell you what we did after a few replies.

I'm new at this but I'd say you do have PSK based on the change to the rule this year that the PSK "window" starts at the snap. I would think the enforcement would be 15 yds. from the end of the kick, R's ball.

Am I close?

-SW---

Everything in my gut tells me that this is <i><b>not</b></i> a PSK foul... However, there's not much in the rulebook that I see that supports me... Here's the only thing I can find:

The foul must occur beyond the expanded neutral zone... If R lines up with 12 players, where is the spot of the foul..? Wherever the 12 player is..? Which one is the 12th..? Is it the return man..? (Who is clearly beyond the ENZ...) Or is it the Nose Guard..? (Who is not beyond the ENZ...)

I rule no PSK... I wish I had clearer justification, though...

Canadian Ruling
 

Perfectly legal.

HAHAHAHAHA :D ;)

I would think the only time it would be a PSK foul is if the 12th man ran onto the field while the kick was in the air beyond the neutral zone. Otherwise, enforcement should be from previous spot.

The interval in which PSK fouls can occur is now when the ball is snapped instead of when the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone. Additionally, the stipulation that the kick must end beyond the neutral zone has been removed. For PSK enforcement to apply all of the following conditions must be met:

The foul is by Team R beyond the expanded neutral zone.

The foul takes place during the interval between the snap and the end of the scrimmage kick (not a try) that crosses the expanded neutral zone.

The ball belongs to Team R when the down ends.

In your example you said you had IP a foul which occurs after the snap. So if you had an IP foul on Team R and the ball was possessed by R at the end of the down and the ball crossed the expanded neutral zone then by rule the foul would be administered from the PSK spot. Doesn't seem fair but that is the way the rule is currently written.

So where is the spot of the foul..?

FWIW: I think the intent of the rule is to not include fouls that are simultaneous with the snap... I think this is a hole in the new rule that hasn't been discovered yet... That being said, that's only my interpretation, which means jack squat...

I can see PiggSkin's point and that's where I was leaning before I started reviewing the rule books and the more I think about it, the more I think that enforcing this as PSK is within the spirit of the PSK rule...

- the kicking team is giving up possession of the ball regardless of what the confused R players are doing;

- R won't get the benefit of any extra run back the 12th man may have given them because the foul will be enforced from the end of the kick;

- it seems like a tripple whammy on R if you give the ball back to K after they kicked it away, give them an extra 15 yards, and that, most likely will give K a first down.

I still vote PSK.

-SW---

I know I have the whole PSK thing confused, but I don't see how R can keep the ball. If it was an INT instead of a punt, would B still get to keep the ball? I don't think so.
(I know INT's are different from punts ... I just don't get it I guess)

BBR, Good question....I guess I am leaning towards no PSK, the only reason I can use to support it is the spot of the foul, and whether it is beyond the neutral zone or not.. I say IP 15 from the previous spot and go on....it doesn't feel right though..

I would have to say not PSK as per the case book on page 73.
1. If there are more than 11 players in the formation at the snap, either offensively or defensively, the foul is considered to have occured at the snap and is IP. The 15 yard penalty is administered from the previous spot.

Until we get something differnt from the Fed I would have to say to go this way.

I also see where others are coming from with the thought to PSK but I fell the need to lean this way.

At the risk of looking stupid...
 

Wouldn't the infraction be IS, instead of IP in this case? I don't have my rule book, but doesn't the 12th man have to contribute to the action on the field for it to be ruled IP? And if so, it would be a 5- yarder enforced from the PSK spot 1 & 10 for R. Help me if I'm way off.

Seef

Assuming that you had 12 participate so you did have IP I would have to go with it not being a PSK foul. PSK now begins with the snap. You had IS but allowed it to become IP. The foul therefore occured before the snap and thus does not meet the definition of PSK.

Or, since it was a foul at the snap it didn't occur during the play as it was a foul at the snap.

Either way I don't think that this foul meets all of the requirements for PSK and should be a previous spot enforcement.

Preventive Officiating?
 

I somewhat agree with Jaysef, but I have a different spin on it. How's about killing the play as it starts and call Dead Ball - Illegal Substitution? This would certainly prevent all of the confusion about how to enforce.

Is that acceptable?

Not only is it acceptable, it's preferred... However, it's not always possible to count 12, then verify your count before the snap in time to kill the play...

Re: Preventive Officiating?
 

I also disagree with Jaysef because the 12th player is in the formation not entering the field makes it an IP. Consider, the kicker looks over the defensive formation and can't seem to find a weakness because with 12 men there is none. The receivers have already gained an advantage.

The Officials' Manual does give some latitude since officials should always be counting and flag the 12th man as an IS; however, if unable to complete your count you flag it as an IP.

In this situation I would rule PSK based upon 2004 Interpretations, Situation 9 and it is a live-ball foul.

I think you should not have let the play get off. Team R members would have to become set for at least one sec before the snap that should give you plenty of time to count. You should have at least 2 people counting Team R. 12 people on the field is illegal subtitution before the snap.

I agree with Cowboyfan1. This is not a PSK situation because the foul occurred at the LOS when the ball was snapped and the basic spot is the previous spot.
Dale Smith

My Mind is Changing
 

I'm starting to lean back the other way against this being PSK. Primarily for two reasons...

- 2-16-2 differentiates between PSK fouls and fouls that occur simultaneously with the snap. Additionally, the first play situation in 10-6 states "*BETWEEN* the time of the snap and the time the kick ends". This last part may be reading a lot into this but it does help support the case.

- I've been kind of skimming past this in my other interpretations but I agree that it's hard to argue that the foul occurs beyond the expanded neutral zone (10-4-3c) since you really have a foul on the entire team, not something that occurs at a particular spot. Unless, I suppose, the entire team was set up away from the line. :-P

-SW---

That would have been true last season but in 2004 PSK begins with the snap. I had been trying to figure why that change was made and this play makes sense. If you brought the ball back to the previous spot Team A gets an extra down or possibly a whole new series. That is exactly why the PSK exception was enacted.

[Edited by Ed Hickland on Aug 24th, 2004 at 12:55 PM]

Re: At the risk of looking stupid...
 

REPLY: If you have twelve on the field at the snap and (the important thing) <u>none</u> of them were attempting to leave the field, who exactly is the twelfth??? It's IP precisely for that reason, deemed to have occurred simultaneous with the snap. You can't tell who was supposed to be participating. And since all 12 were lined up in a defensive formation, they have all participated in that each of them had an opportunity to affect A's check calls at the LOS and possibly blocking assignments. It is <b>not</b> a PSK foul. Like GPC2 said, it should be penalized as a 5-yd. dead ball IS foul. But often when teams are scrambling with substitutions, it's difficult to count and equally hard to determine whether a replaced player is attempting to leave the field which would make the foul a live ball IS foul (still not PSK).

Althought the situation in this thread shows a possible flaw in the rule you still have to look at the elements of the foul.

1) Is the foul by R beyond the expanded neutral zone? Yes, we have 12 R team members on the field during the play. The way the play is described leads me to believe that all 12 participated so we have an IP foul.

2) Did the foul take place during the interval between the snap and the end of the scrimmage kick that crosses the expanded neutral zone? Yes, IP occurs when you have more than 11 players on a team participating during a live ball.

3) Did the ball belong to R at the end of the play, i.e., did R possess the ball when the ball became dead? Yes, the play indicates that R possessed the ball at the end of the play.

If all three of these elements are answered yes we have a foul that is enforced under PSK enforcement rules. The foul is enforced from the basic spot. If basic spot is behind where the ball becomes dead in R's possession then it is a 15-yd penalty from the basic spot; however, if the ball becomes dead in R's possession behind the basic spot then the penalty is enforced from the succeeding spot.

See how simple that is!!!!!! (read sarcastic tongue in cheek)

I agree, but from the question it seemed as if the BJ realized the twelve players at the snap.

No, the foul is <B>not</b> beyond the expanded neutral zone... There are players all over the field, some within the ENZ, and some not... There is no single spot of the foul for this call...

If you disagree, then tell me where the spot of the foul is...

Fouls at snap are previous spot fouls.
 

Illegal participation fouls occur at the snap and by rule should be enforced from the previous spot.

This should be one of the exceptions to the PSK rules.

Not PSK.
 

I do not think this is PSK and should not be ruled as such. The foul did not talk place neccarily beyond the ENZ. This cannot be PSK from basic definitions. At the very least that is my take. I do not think this was one of the rules that was intended for PSK. I might be completely wrong but at very glance I would not call PSK here.

OK, we have some of R's players attempted to get on their side of the neutral zone when the foul occurs. That makes the first element of PSK enforcement false. Therefore, there would be no PSK enforcement, you would still have an IP foul that would be enforced from the previous spot.

Remember, that all three elements of the PSK must be true for you to have a PSK enforcement. It's really rather simple when you break down the rule to its basic elements.

I apologize for pulling out the IRAC (issue, rule, analysis, conclusion) breakdown that I was taught in law school, but it really does help to understand a situation.

A friend gave me this rules reference which I believe applies.

10-4-2a

The basic spot is the previous spot for fouls that occur simultanelusly with the snap. Wouldn't this rule apply here?

This needs an interpretation from NFHS.

While the book does not state in the rule in the Rule Book under "2004 Football Rules Changes" 2-16-2g "Clarification has been made that a post-scrimmage kick situation begins with the snap..."

The spirit and intent of the rule was exactly to change the situation where A has exhausted its downs and intends to kick the ball to B. However, a foul by B during the scrimmage kick down allows A to retain possession at the previous spot and could result in a new series for A.

PSK was meant to override the inequity in 10-4-2a on scrimmage kick downs.

That's really not the purpose of the querstion but I'll address it so we can get it out of the way.


Yes, it's preferred but it wasn't appropriate. R was confused as to who was supposed to be on the field. They were running off and on at such a rapid rate that it honestly wasn't possible to determine how many were out there and they stopped. By that time, the ball was snapped.

We've all been there. You're trying to count players, not sure if you counted correctly, and you start again. Boom, the ball is snapped.

The key here is how is it handled once it happens. opinions seem to be split down the middle so far.

And yes, all 12 players did participate. 12 on the field at the snap, 12 on the field at the end of the down.

Don't know what game you're officiating but there's no requirement that team R players have to become set for one second.

Re: Re: At the risk of looking stupid...
 

Exactly. Thank you, Bob.

We all agree that you should kill the play if possible. But it isn't ALWAYS possible. Forget what should have happened. It didn't. The play happened, how do we penalize it?

The point of this there are 12 on the field at the snap and thus an IP. With the way teams GENERALLY line up you have 1 deep returner and then the rest on the line at the snap. There may be 1 other a little bit off the line but most teams have 10 on the line (or 11 in this case).
As stated before, you do not have a spot on this type of foul. The rule book also clearly states this is a previous spot foul and with that, there is no exception to PSK for this foul. While I agree that the changes the fed made this year to PSK, it could be looked at as PSK. However they have not released anything written on this saying it is PSK thus I will stick to enforcing per the current written IP rule.

That would have been true last season but in 2004 PSK begins with the snap. I had been trying to figure why that change was made and this play makes sense. If you brought the ball back to the previous spot Team A gets an extra down or possibly a whole new series. That is exactly why the PSK exception was enacted.

[Edited by Ed Hickland on Aug 24th, 2004 at 12:55 PM] [/B][/QUOTE]

Sorry Ed I have to disagree with you. This years and last years interpretation does not come in to play in this case. What does come in to question is exactly where is the spot of the foul? You have 12 men all over the field. Is the 12th man on the line? Is he a deep receiver? We do not know and never will know in this situation. Granted the play should have been shut down prior to the snap but sometimes that just does not happen. In this case the foul happened when the ball was snapped. Since we do not know which player is not supposed to be on the field, common sense also says that the spot of the foul is the line of scrimmage. Not beyond the expanded neutral zone. Therefore on this play PSK does not apply.
Dale Smith

Put me down on the side that believes this is NOT a PSK foul.

If you look in the Case Book under the IP section in rule 10, one of the comments states, and I am paraphrasing, if either team has more than 11 players on the field who are participating (the 12th is not attempting to leave the field), it is a foul for IP, and is a 15 yard penalty enforced from the previous spot (NO EXCEPTIONS).

Also, if K has 4th dowm and less than 5 yards to go, and this is flagged prior to the snap, they will still get their 1st down, just as they most likely will if it is flagged simultaneuos with the snap and is a 15 yard penalty. This is no great revalation on my part. I just do not recall that point being brought up in the previous posts on this topic.

Sorry Ed I have to disagree with you. This years and last years interpretation does not come in to play in this case. What does come in to question is exactly where is the spot of the foul? You have 12 men all over the field. Is the 12th man on the line? Is he a deep receiver? We do not know and never will know in this situation. Granted the play should have been shut down prior to the snap but sometimes that just does not happen. In this case the foul happened when the ball was snapped. Since we do not know which player is not supposed to be on the field, common sense also says that the spot of the foul is the line of scrimmage. Not beyond the expanded neutral zone. Therefore on this play PSK does not apply.
Dale Smith [/QUOTE]

The reason that the change was made is because that is the way it was intended to be in the first place: Simpler and more sensible.
Our local association (which I didn't belong to at the time) was instrumental in orchestrating the initial PSK rule experiment and eventual rule change. Not that they were pioneers or anything (NFL and NCAA? already had it), but in the 1st year of PSK as a NFHS rule, Columbus told us to enforce PSK starting with the snap becuase that is the way "we" (OH) wrote it to begin with but the Fed. comittee changed it. You all know that it is nearly impossible for an official calling a potential PSK foul to know whether or not the ball had crossed the NZ when the foul occurred--or for the HL (watching whether or not the ball crosses the NZ) to know when that flag was thrown. The spritit of the rule, in my paraphrase, says that a foul on R's side of the ENZ on a punt is relative to R's return of the kick (field position) whether or not the kick has yet to have been made; if a foul by R occurs in the ENZ or on K's side, it is reletive to R's pursuit of the kicker, and if an R foul occurs before the snap (or simultaneous with it), it also falls into the category of gaining an advantage for line play, etc. Think about it this way: in general, is the foul one you would normally see after a change of possession?

Hope that helps :)

Jonathan

BBR How did you handle it????
 

Ok BBR the thread is 3 pages now..and very good discussion, and as you mentioned it appears to be split down the middle...there can be a case made either way...so tell us how did you guys handle it??

I'll break the split and cast a vote for not a PSK foul.

Let me tilt the scale....
 

I'll tilt the scale and say that it is not a PSK foul.....after reading everyone's comments on this, it just makes more sense to me.....I emailed five of my friends that are officials with the same question and they all agreed it was not PSK.....

Its not a spot foul, and its a foul at the snap....I say its not PSK....

This has been a good thread, good discussion on it....

[Edited by Simbio on Aug 25th, 2004 at 12:31 PM]

Re: BBR How did you handle it????
 

We penalized it with previous spot administration. As the U, my argument was that the foul occurred simultaneous with the snap. Had it been IS instead of IP, I felt that we still would have foul at the snap - previous spot enforcement. But, does the foul occuring at the snap matter?

I have no idea if we were right or not.

Evidently, no one else does either. :D

That's why I brought it up, because I don't know. Think I'll post it on McGriff to get some other comments.

Oh, sure ask for our help and then take it somewhere else to "get more opinions" :D LOL...for pete's sake the majority supported your decision too LOL.....so how did everyone take it any squalling from the affected howler monkey???

BK

I think you handled it properly. I think that is the most common sense way to handle it. I have to admit that I am not sure myself.

I think they handled it correctly also...I am with everyone else in the not exactly sure, but I think they did the right thing...

I think BBR handled it correctly, also. All fouls simultaneious with the snap are previous spot enforcement. PSK does not apply because there is no location for this foul.

I emailed the NFHS
 

Sent an email and I got a reply back..

R did not commit a PSK foul.



By rule (10-4-1a) the spot of the foul will be the previous spot. I would also reference you to Rule 2-16-2g.



If the penalty is accepted it would be first and ten for K at R’s 40-yard line.



Hope that helps.





Jerry L. Diehl

Assistant Director

National Federation of State High School Assn. (NFHS)

P.O. Box 690

Indianapolis, IN 46206

(O) 317-972-6900

(F) 317-822-5700

http://www.nfhs.org


So there it is folks.. Per the Fed it is not PSK thus administered from the previous spot.

No howls from any of the monkies.

______________________________________

Thanks to cowboyfan1 for getting an official interp. I appreciate it.

Re: I emailed the NFHS
 

Cowboyfan, good job. I stand corrected.

Hope that NY QB works for your boys.

Definitely not PSK. Foul is simultaneous with the snap. The snap is never beyond the ENZ. PSK requires (spot of) foul to occur beyond ENZ. Those of us who say we don't have a spot aren't remembering that a foul simultaneuos with the snap is a previous spot foul.

Reverse this for a moment.
If two player are in motion, which one fouled and does it matter?

I too stand corrected. However, as usual, the editors at NFHS could stand to do some clarification on this one. At the front of the rule book under 2004 Football Rule Changes for Rule 2-16-2g it says, "Clarification has been made that a post scrimmage kick situation begins with the snap...."

I think all they are saying is that the window for PSK opens at the snap. Last year, it opened after the ball crossed the neutral zone.

Does not fit all the criteria?
 

I might be wrong, but does the spot of the foul have to be beyond the expanded neutral zone?

This is not a spot foul. So how can you have PSK without this being a spot foul?

Re: Re: I emailed the NFHS
 

Well based off what I saw that Cowboy QB won't be much help to that NY team...8-)

Re: Does not fit all the criteria?
 

I am unclear as to what is being asked.

In order for PSK to be used, ONE criteria is that the foul has to occur beyond the expanded NZ.