Effect of a Touched Kick

[dumbref]

Originally posted by Warrenkicker
You, at least, are clearly on one side of the arguement now. Is that the correct ruling? We are still waiting on that I think but I would agree with you.

I hate to drag this back up, but I am with Warrenkicker. I am not sure we ever came to a consensus on this one. As you can tell from my posts, I have an opinion. I’d like to know if it is correct or totally off base.

[WVREF]

According to our state rules interpreter if you have this situation it would be K's ball 1st and 10 after marking off the penalty for ineligible downfield. Now to make the play even more fun same situation R muffs punt, it rebounds behind LOS K1 recovers and throws pass beyond LOS where K has ineligibles downfield, but now R commits DPI on the pass. What do we have?

[grantsrc]

Originally posted by WVREF
According to our state rules interpreter if you have this situation it would be K's ball 1st and 10 after marking off the penalty for ineligible downfield. Now to make the play even more fun same situation R muffs punt, it rebounds behind LOS K1 recovers and throws pass beyond LOS where K has ineligibles downfield, but now R commits DPI on the pass. What do we have?

Head off the field, I think it's Miller Time!

[w_sohl]

Originally posted by WVREF
According to our state rules interpreter if you have this situation it would be K's ball 1st and 10 after marking off the penalty for ineligible downfield. Now to make the play even more fun same situation R muffs punt, it rebounds behind LOS K1 recovers and throws pass beyond LOS where K has ineligibles downfield, but now R commits DPI on the pass. What do we have?

Offsetting penalties so either 1st and Ten for K from OLOS or rekick. hmmmmm...

[Warrenkicker]

My state interprieter sent my original play in to Jerry Diehl for an official ruling. I still haven't heard back but my state guy was thinking that A would get a first down even with the penalty enforcement. Now if there were fouls by both teams I would think that A/K would have to decline the penalty to get the 1-10 after the penalty enforcement. Otherwise it is an offset and we treat it like the play never happened. The way I see it this play would need to be treated exaclty the same as a play where there was an actual change of possession, fumble or int, prior to any fouls.

[simpson]

One confusing point:

If a kick is muffed by R beyond the neutral zone, K is not allowed to advance it right? If that's the case, wouldn't the ball be dead when R recovers never allowing the "legal forward pass" to occur in the first place. 1st and 10 from the spot of recovery.

I don't have my rulebook in front of me so I can't check to make sure that K cannot advance a muffed kick if they recover behind their neutral zone. It just seems you guys are making this play more complicated than it should be.

[WVREF]

SIMPSON SAID
One confusing point:

If a kick is muffed by R beyond the neutral zone, K is not allowed to advance it right? If that's the case, wouldn't the ball be dead when R recovers never allowing the "legal forward pass" to occur in the first place. 1st and 10 from the spot of recovery.

I don't have my rulebook in front of me so I can't check to make sure that K cannot advance a muffed kick if they recover behind their neutral zone. It just seems you guys are making this play more complicated than it should be.




K can advance the ball if its recovered behind the LOS so ball doesn't become dead when they make the recovery in this situation. I also have our state rules interpreters take on this play situation. Will post his answer after some more discussion.

[Edited by WVREF on Sep 8th, 2005 at 10:39 AM]

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by WVREF
... Now to make the play even more fun same situation R muffs punt, it rebounds behind LOS K1 recovers and throws pass beyond LOS where K has ineligibles downfield, but now R commits DPI on the pass. What do we have?

REPLY: Double foul...replay the previous down.

[dumbref]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Double foul...replay the previous down.

I can buy double foul because there was no change of team possession 10-2-3b. But I see nothing that precludes awarding A/K a new series 5-1-3f.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.

REPLY: Double foul...replay the previous down.

Bob M., please read pages 2, 3, and 4 of posts and let us know where you are coming from with this. Most of us are thinking it would still be 1-10 for K after the IDF foul cuz they got possession with clean hands, and then fouled.

[mikesears]

In order to understand this, I think we must take a close look at the awarding of a new series rules.

5-1-2:

A new series of downs is awarded:

b) after a fourth down, a new series of downs shall be awarded only after considering the effect of any act during the down.

5-1-3:

When a scrimmage down ends with the ball in the field of play or out of bounds between the goal lines, a new series is awarded to:

f) The team in possession at the end of the down, if R is the first to touch a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the expanded neutral zone, unless the penalty is accepted for a non post-scrimmage kick foul which occurred before the kick ended.


Because R touched the scrimmage kick beyond the expanded neutral zone, when the down ends, the team in possession will have a new series. The kick ended when K possessed the ball so the last sentence of (f) doesn't apply.


5-2-2:

When a foul occurs during a scrimmage down and before any change of team possession, and before a receiver is first to touch the scrimmage kick whlie it is beyond the neutral zone, the ball belongs to A or K after enforcement unless is is a 2-16-2g (post-scrimmage kick) foul. The number of the next down is the same as that of the down during which the foul occurred unless penatly acceptance includes a first down or loss of down, or the enforcement or the advance results in a first down . . . .

I don't think this rule addresses the situation. We have a foul before a change of team possession but the receiver's did touch the ball beyond the neutral zone. Both "and conditions" were not met. The foul by K is not a PSK foul.


5-2-5:

Following a foul, a series of downs ends when:

f) R is first to touch a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the neutral zone, unless a non post-scrimmage kick foul occurs before the kick ends and the penalty is accepted.


Given this play, the continuity of downs is broken. The series of downs has ended. The foul occured after the kick ended so We can't go back to 4th down.


5-2-6:

After a series of downs ends, a new series with first and 10 yards to gain is awarded, unless (too lazy to type it out). The first down is awarded to the team in possession when the foul occurs unless, declining the penalty leaves the other team in possession, or as in (c) and (f), accepting or declining the penalty leaves the other team in possession after fourth down. (See 5-2-5-c, f)

We see by 5-2-5f that the series of downs ended in the play. Now we see that a new series is awarded to the team in possession (team K in our play in question) when the IDF foul occured.


In my opinion, penalize for the IDF and K keeps the ball.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Excellent analysis, Mike. I went back and forth reading the early posts in this thread, then gave up on the thread for a while. Your argument is sound, though - after the penalty is assessed, K's ball first & ten.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: MJT...I'm back (long football weekend) but I really can't figure out what play we were discussing and what 'ruling' of mine we're debating. Can you recap? Is it simply the original play, or is it that play with the ineligibles downfield? or was it the one with both ineligibles downfield and DPI?



I might have a really good reason for my opinion or I might have misread the play, or I might be plumb wrong.

[MJT]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: MJT...I'm back (long football weekend) but I really can't figure out what play we were discussing and what 'ruling' of mine we're debating. Can you recap? Is it simply the original play, or is it that play with the ineligibles downfield? or was it the one with both ineligibles downfield and DPI?



I might have a really good reason for my opinion or I might have misread the play, or I might be plumb wrong.

The one with the IDF. Most of us are thinking it would still be 1-10 for K after the IDF foul cuz they got possession with clean hands, and then fouled.

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by MJT

The one with the IDF. Most of us are thinking it would still be 1-10 for K after the IDF foul cuz they got possession with clean hands, and then fouled.

REPLY: When did they not have possession??