I was thinking of ways to reword the 5th requirement for PSK under NF rules

Current Wording:
5. And K does not have possession of the ball when the down ends and will not be next to put the ball in play.


My proposal:
5. And Team A is not awarded a new series.

Rational
Simplifies the rule.




Commence Firing! :)

Great idea, and that is exactly why it would be nice to get input from officials before putting together the rule and case books. Every state rep knows a few officials who are really good, and interested in the rules that they could get to look over them before going to press and eliminate many of the wording problems.

I like it but I would say "and K is not awarded a new series".

well, that is exactly how i understand it works. the problem is that with so many reps (49), it can take a couple of years to be reflected in the rulebook. we sent in a couple a few years ago, and now see them work. so if you have a suggestion, send it to your state rep. that person can be determined by looking in the rule book.

REPLY: Consider this play...

<b>PLAY:</b> K's ball, 3-8 from midfield. K1's short punt lands at R's 45 and bounces back behind the NZ to K's 48 where a prone K2 recovers.

See where I'm going with this?

I am afraid I don't. Can you explain a little further?

When there was a legal scrimmage kick on third down and K recovers and is downed behind the neutral zone then the next down will be 4th. K is not awarded a new series but neither is R. So K is in possession of the ball at the end of the play and will also be the next to put the ball in play but no new series is awarded.

So if you remove one of these requirements then you make this play a PSK enforcement when it never should be. Now if you consider the kick by K "giving up possession" then this is not a problem but NF says K is still in possession until R is in possession.

Yup. How about we try "And R would be awarded a new series as a result of the play"?

Good grief. Don't know why, but I had it in my mind that once the ball crosses the neutral zone that the ball belonged to R. K could advance it but they had to make the line to gain otherwise R was given possession of the ball. Boy, was I WRONG!

I think some people are confused with the wording about K not being in possession at the end of the donw and thinking that "downing" a punt is possession of the ball.

I think the Fed did a good thing by clarifying the rule the way the did. I am just thinking of ways to make it simpler.


How about this.....

Add a definition to Rule 2 (like the college rule).

Belongs to: Specifies which team would next put the ball into play. (e.g. The ball belongs to R).

Change 2-16-2g-5 to say, "And the ball beongs to R as a result of action during the down".

REPLY: At first blush, I like Roamin'Umpire's recommendation. Stipulating the possession requirement for PSK as a 'negative' statement like it is now ("K does not have possession...") can only cause confusion. The NCAA rule is also written in the negative.