Another PSK

[dumbref]

K's ball on their own 5, 4th and 8. K's kick goes beyond the expanded neutal zone where it is muffed by R. The muff bounces into and through K's end zone. During the kick, R holds at K's 15. If K accepts the penalty, PSK or Previous spot?

Play 2:
Same situation except R recovers the kick at K's 2 yard line.

There is not a new force - the kick was very much alive and kicking. Someone will have to explain to me why there is a difference whether the scrimmage kick is grounded or not. Never mind - a new force can not be added to a kick in flight! DUH!

[Edited by dumbref on Sep 6th, 2004 at 11:59 AM]

[KWH]

Originally posted by dumbref
K's ball on their own 5, 4th and 8. K's kick goes beyond the expanded neutal zone where it is muffed by R. The muff bounces into and through K's end zone. During the kick, R holds at K's 15. If K accepts the penalty, PSK or Previous spot?

A question lingers about your play. That question being; When did the ball first touch the ground?
1) Did the ball first touch the ground prior to the muff by R? Or,
2) Did the ball first touch the ground after the muff by R?
Not knowing the answer, I will provide both results. However either way, PSK is not applicable because;

1) Assuming the ball first touched the ground prior to the muff by R, the result of the play is a touchback. (See NFHS 8-5-3b)
Since R is not next to put the ball in play following a touchback, PSK is not applicable.
Therefore, the options for K are: a), accept the penalty (Loose ball enforcement would make it 1st and 10 for K on the K-15); or b), decline the penalty and accept the result of the play (a touchback) K's ball 1st and 10 on the K-20.

2) Assuming the ball first touched the ground after the muff by R the result of the play is a safety, See NFHS 8-5-2b
Since R is not next to put the ball in play following a touchback, PSK is not applicable.
Therefore, the options for K are: a), accept the penalty (Loose ball enforcement would make it 1st and 10 for K on the K-15) or b), decline the penalty and accept the result of the play (a safety) - Award R 2-points and K shall put the ball in play via a free kick from the K-20.K's ball 1st and 10 on the K-20.

In both cases the obvious choice is in bold.

Originally posted by dumbref
Play 2:
Same situation except R recovers the kick at K's 2 yard line.

PSK is applicable!
Since the end of the kick is the K-2 yard line, and the spot of the foul is behind the end of the kick the holding penalty (10 yards) would be enforced from the K-15 yard line. Since R is next to put the ball in play and all the other requirments of PSK have been met, PSK is applicable. The result of the play is 1st and 10 for R (now A) at the K (now B) 25.


[Note: I corrected my earlier post after reading Pigg Skins post below as I then realized I had mine all screwed up - this is a great play, I will present it to the 3rd officials in the class I instruct. Good job Pigg Skin]


[Edited by KWH on Sep 5th, 2004 at 06:19 PM]

[JugglingReferee]

Originally posted by dumbref
K's ball on their own 5, 4th and 8. K's kick goes beyond the expanded neutal zone where it is muffed by R. The muff bounces into and through K's end zone. During the kick, R holds at K's 15. If K accepts the penalty, PSK or Previous spot?

Play 2:
Same situation except R recovers the kick at K's 2 yard line.

Play 1: When R muffs the punt, it is a live ball. The bouncing into K's EZ and OB is an offside pass by R, therefore R 1D/10 @ PP. R holding during the kick, assumed to be in flight, is 10 yards from PP.

Play 2: Same - 10 yards from PP.

[PiggSkin]

We need a little bit more information on your first situation, because force is a factor... Did the R player impart new force on the ball..?

If so, then the result of the play is a touchback, giving K 1/10@20... Therefore, PSK does not apply... K then has the option of accepting the foul as previous spot enforcement... That would give K 1/10@15, so they would likely decline... (However, if the original LOS was the 15, they would likely accept, since they would have 1/10@25...)

If new force was not applied, the the result of the play is a safety... R would not be in possession at the end of the down, so again PSK does not apply... K definitely accepts this penalty, so 1/10@15 after previous spot enforcement...

So either way, no PSK, and R pays dearly for their transgression...

[garobe]

If R muffed kick and the kick moved under it's own force into the endzone after the muff, how could you have anything other than a touchback? If R imparted a new force and as a result of the new force the kick moved into the endzone, then you would have a safety... Muffing the kick by R does not end the kick nor does muffing automaticaly impart a force that puts the ball into the endzone. If I'm wrong sue me, or convince me, but don't hate me.

Let's hear some thoughts on a Safety during a scrimmage kick. A muff in no way changes possesion as the ball has been touched by R but not possessed.

[Edited by garobe on Sep 6th, 2004 at 11:45 PM]

[jack015]

Originally posted by garobe
If R muffed kick and the kick moved under it's own force into the endzone after the muff, how could you have anything other than a touchback? If R imparted a new force and as a result of the new force the kick moved into the endzone, then you would have a safety... Muffing the kick by R does not end the kick nor does muffing automaticaly impart a force that puts the ball into the endzone. If I'm wrong sue me, or convince me, but don't hate me.

Let's hear some thoughts on a Safety during a scrimmage kick. A muff in no way changes possesion as the ball has been touched by R but not possessed.

[Edited by garobe on Sep 6th, 2004 at 11:45 PM]

Paraphrasing from the Rule Book: Regarding kicks going into R's EZ, force is never a factor because all kicks that go into R's EZ are always TB's.

The only way there could be a safety on the play is if the ball is possesed by R (i.e. the kick ends) and then R's fumble is the force that put the ball in their own EZ and it is declared dead there in R's possesion.

[PiggSkin]

Unless I'm mis-reading the original question, we're talking about kicks going into K's end zone, not R's... Therefore force is a factor...

Yes, any kick (other than a FG) that goes into R's end zone is a touchback...

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by garobe
If R muffed kick and the kick moved under it's own force into the endzone after the muff, how could you have anything other than a touchback? If R imparted a new force and as a result of the new force the kick moved into the endzone, then you would have a safety... Muffing the kick by R does not end the kick nor does muffing automaticaly impart a force that puts the ball into the endzone. If I'm wrong sue me, or convince me, but don't hate me.

Let's hear some thoughts on a Safety during a scrimmage kick. A muff in no way changes possesion as the ball has been touched by R but not possessed.

[Edited by garobe on Sep 6th, 2004 at 11:45 PM]

REPLY: If R muffed the kick while in flight then that muff is by definition not a new force since a new force cannot be imparted to a pass, fumble, or kick in flight (NF 2-13-3). If however the kick was grounded when R muffed it, it becomes the responsibility of the covering official to judge whether the muff imparted a new force. So in the play in question, if R muffed the kick in flight, the play results in a safety by rule. K's kick is judged to be the force that put the ball into K's endzone.

[jack015]

Originally posted by PiggSkin
Unless I'm mis-reading the original question, we're talking about kicks going into K's end zone, not R's... Therefore force is a factor...

Yes, any kick (other than a FG) that goes into R's end zone is a touchback...

Sorry . . . you guys are correct. I got the wrong EZ in my head . . . should have gone back and read the whole thread on the subject before I replied.

[Jaysef]

I tuned in late to this thread, but if anyone is still willing to dig in, it does not make sense that K would be punished for kicking the ball away! I understand that a muff on a ball in flight cannot impart a new force, but to give K a safety seems wrong.

J

[skipcarter]

WOW!!!!seems to me K would have to take r's holding pently mark off 10 yards and replay the down or decline and take the safty.But now i am not sure about that damn psk lol cause the kick did not end with a muff?????hmhmhmhmhmhm great question!,skip

[Bob Mc]

Originally posted by Jaysef
I tuned in late to this thread, but if anyone is still willing to dig in, it does not make sense that K would be punished for kicking the ball away! I understand that a muff on a ball in flight cannot impart a new force, but to give K a safety seems wrong.

J

Seemingly wrong things do happen, but Bob M is right (again)by definition it is the way it is.

Not to go a different direction...A attemts a 2 point try from the 1 1/2 yard line--B having been penalized during the TD--A at the snap goes backwards (why? who knows) and finally is tackled at the 10 yard line. During the tackle B is penalized for PF facemask. Is it now fair that A has a right to replay the down, but now from the 5 yard line? Oh well...Coach's don't like basic spot enforcment on this.

[dumbref]

First of all, we are talking about the loose ball going into K's end zone. Though I had not considered a new force being applied when I first posted the thread, the point I was trying to make is it is still K's ball either way and PSK would not apply.

In play 2, All elements apply for PSK but the all but the all but one principle would be enforced making it a spot foul.

To rule that a new force had been applied, the kick would have to be grounded and either at or almost at rest prior to the muff. Unless those vital elements are present, the muff only changed the direction of the kick and the force that put the ball in the end zone is still the kick - thus a safety.

[SJoldguy]

When I started football officiating in 1975 the statement "nearly at rest " was in the rulebook. Now the words are gone but the principle stills remains in that the covering official must judge if a old force has been spent and a new force was added. Some comments about this is that i have heard are, if the ball was moving to slowly to reach the endzone( in the judgment of the covering official) then a muff that accelerates the ball into the endzone is a new force. Without question "new/original force" judgments are difficult. Most force situations that come up in a game are not the difficult variety....But be ready when the tough one comes up, be firm and sell your call!!!!