Fourth and 10 on K's 45-yard line. K1 punts the ball beyond the neutral zone. R1 muffs the ball back behind the neutral zone where K1 recovers and throws a legal forward pass to K3 which is incomplete. The question is Who's gets to keep possession? K or R?

Ok, I'm 0-1 2nt, but I'll try again. K did not make it to the LTG, so they will not get a new series. Since we had an incomplete pass, the ball will go back to the PS, so 1-10 for B at K's-45.

Legal. K's ball if they make the line to gain (R's 45). This play is right out of the case book, 5.1.3 Situation C, (b).

What makes this play interesting is how close it resembles the play in the 2005 case book 5.1.3 situation C where they describe a similar situation; Its fourth and 10 on K's 45 yard line. K1 punts the ball beyond the neutral zone. R1 muffs the ball back behind the neutral zone where K1 recovers, and falls on the ball at K's 40-yard line. In this situation ruling is 1st down for K at K's 40-yard line.

Yeah, but they threw some PI in there just to spice things up.

waltjp, this is not the same play as 5.1.3C as the pass was incomplete. That is what really makes this play different.

(Fundamnetal Statement)If R ever touches a scrimmage kick beyond the NZ, it will be 1st down for the team in possession when the down ends.

Even though K threw an incomplete pass after the kick was touched by R beyond the NZ, the ball is still in K's possession. 1st and 10 for K at their 45 yard line. Good luck explaining that one to R's coach.

Agreed. I should have said 'similar'. I was just commenting on the legality of the pass after the kick.

That was my other thought, but want some other responses before going with that for sure.

I agree that even though there was an incomplete pass on 4th down by the team which snapped the ball, it is the touching by R beyond the neutral zone which is the controlling factor on the play. Because of the touching, whoever is in possession of the ball at the end of the play will be awarded a new series.

A fun 10 minutes explaining this one to the head coach.

We discussed this play at our meeting Monday night. Don't know if somebody read it here, it actually developed out of a discussion on the kicking game. We agreed that the ball would belong to K. Our situation was even uglier in that we had the ball rebound back into K's endzone where the incomplete pass was thrown. One thing we pointed out was to check really well for ineligibles downfield, as its almost impossible to imagine this play occurring without some ineligible going down field. In this case we would repeat 4th down after marking off the penalty (at least I hope!)

Wow-
That's an interesting play! I feel like I'm in the movie The Exorcist or something they way my head is spinning! Great example.

The PI foul is administered from the previous spot and not the end of the run?

This is in regards to the Casebook play where it is a complete pass.

[Edited by w_sohl on Aug 25th, 2005 at 12:08 PM]

So in this situation, K gets a free play baring an interception on the pass.

Incomplete pass = 1st down K from K45
Complete Pass less than LTG = 1st down K from end of run
Complete Pass to LTG+ = 1st down K from end of run
Interception = 1st down R from end of run

REPLY: Going back to the original play posted by gtwbam, it will be K's ball 1-10 from the previous spot. The LTG has no more significance in this play once R touches the kick beyond the ENZ.

DUH, should have realized that. Just so much to think about on this play.

There were
It is still 4th down because of penalty enforcement or is it now 1-10 for K after the penalty is marked off? I think it is 1-10 for K from K-40 because of the touching of the kick by R.

Are you saying you'd wave off the flag for ineligibles? I thought that the ball goes to the team in possession at the end of the down if R touches the kick unless a penalty is accepted for a non-PSK foul which occured before the kick ended.

REPLY: No...it will be 4th down for K. Accepting the penalty for the ineligibles downfield calls for a replay of the previous down. Remember that the kick-muff-pass play is negated by acceptance of the penalty.

kdf5 - I had enforced the IDF from K-45 to K-40.

Bob M. - But if, without the foul, you would give A/K the ball with a 1-10 after the touched kick, would you somewhat equate that to a change of possession as the pass after the touching had no effect on the down changing or who got the ball?

Understandibly somewhat different but after an interception, B throws an IFP, would you take away the change of possession and give the ball back to A? I wouldn't.

I know these are exactly the same plays but fouls after a change in possession don't negate the change. In this play there was no actual change of possession but it is treated that way in that K may retain possession of the ball and get a new series of downs without reaching the line to gain.

So my point is that K/A was awarded a new series, through the touching, with clean hands and then fouled. I don't see the reason to take the new series away from them on this obscure, probably never happen in my lifetime, play.

I just don't see that the repeat of the down which the penalty specifies overrides the new series awarding by the touching. Just because penalties specify the repeating of a down or loss of down does not mean we are always able to enforce it.

The IDF makes this an interesting play! Because the pass occurred from behind the neutral zone, this became a loose ball play and would constitute re-playing of the down.

Read 5-1-3f closely.

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

The foul definitely occurred after the kick ended. So why wouldn’t it be K’s ball with a new series after penalty enforcement?

If I were a good lawyer, I could argue either side with vigor!

Change the foul to an illegal pass from beyond the neutral zone. Who’s ball and what down then?


[Edited by dumbref on Aug 26th, 2005 at 12:16 PM]

Warrenkicker: I guess I'm assuming that in your post: "Fourth and 10 on K's 45-yard line. K1 punts the ball beyond the neutral zone. R1 muffs the ball back behind the neutral zone where K1 recovers and throws a legal forward pass to K3 which is incomplete". and there are "ineligibles down field" means that the ineligibles are downfield between the muff and the recovery. This would mean that 5-1-3f comes into play and that R will accept the ineligibles penalty and thereby nullfying 5-1-3f and we would replay the down. Forgive me if I'm off track with your post.

kdf5 - Well they may or may not have been beyond the neutral zone during the kick. They probably were. However it is not illegal to be beyond the neutral zone until the legal pass is thrown. So I don't think you are off track with what I am thinking but you are just saying that the foul occurs at a different time than I say it does. I say it is clearly after the kick ended.

dumbref - I don't see much difference in your situation except that if the penalty disallows the 1-10 for K then R gets the ball due to the loss-of-down. Perhaps a play with larger ramifications than mine.

Bob M.: Why is the kick/muff/pass negated? The foul occurred after the kick ended.

Warrenkicker: On the illegal pass situation - the net effect of the play is change of posession - I think LOD would be overruled by the awarding of a new series. If after an interception, B threw an illegal pass the loss of down would be waved. Why not in this case?

[Edited by dumbref on Aug 27th, 2005 at 10:28 PM]

I was thinking about this play, and what Bob M said the whole day yesterday and discussed it with "Big House", my L who is on my HS crew, and we both are thinking it would still be 1-10 for K after the IDF foul cuz they got possession with clean hands, and then fouled.

We need Bob M to get back on here and give his arguement. I'm sure we are all anxtious cuz Bob is not wrong very often so he has put doubt in our reasoning.

Come on Bob, get back in the ball game!

Good discussion here and made me open up a number of case book plays! Thanks.

This season I'm starting my first game as Varsity BJ so I'm really studying up on the muffed kick scenarios so this thread has been great.

I agree with MJT's take here. Once R muffs and K recovers, "possesion" is ruled to be with K. And barring any fouls before K kicked, K would have possession from the spot where the muffed kick was recovered and we would go from there, correct?

WM

My answer came from thinking the ineligibles downfield occured immediately after the ball was punted so you are right, I think the IDF did occur at a different time than you. They would have been caught so to speak downfield not realizing there was going to be a pass.

I was saying that if it would have been K's ball still and replay 4th down then a penalty which includes a loss of down will then cause the ball to be turned over on downs.

But I still think it should be 1-10 for K on any of these situations.

[Edited by Warrenkicker on Aug 28th, 2005 at 03:14 PM]

I'm a new official and find myself very confused here.
Here's my take on it:

1. We have a scrimmage kick touched beyond the neutral zone by R, This now can be recovered by K or R at this point and a new series is awarded to the recovering team. (Rule 6-2-4)

The ball returns beyond the neutral zone where it is recovered by K and passed forward for an incomplete pass. *Here I would think is was an illegal forward pass since possession has changed during the down due to R's touching? (7-5-2a) You would have IFP on K and enforce 5yrds from spot of foul 1st and 10 K's ball.

Or would that not be considered change of possession since it was a muff by R (2-26), therefore the ball remains K's since they resecured possesion. You would then have a legal forward pass behind the neutral zone by K, which is incomplete. It would be 1st and 10 from K's 45, since they are awarded a new series due to R's touching.

Does this sound close at all or make any sense?

mmaguth, we definitely do not have a COP cuz R never gained possession, they muffed it.

You have pretty much got it right. The way the play in question is described, K recovered the kick (no change of possession) behind the LOS. This play is a classic example of a situation where Fundamental Statement II-3 on pg. 74 of the Rule Book and FS VI-2 on pg. 75 apply.

Since you are new to officiating and if you have not already realized it, if you learn the Fundamental Statements to the extent that when you see a situation on the field that a FS can be applied to, a light will start to come on in your brain when it happens and you should be able to analyze what happened and rule correctly.

Best of luck in your new avocation.

[Edited by jack015 on Aug 29th, 2005 at 07:27 AM]

Thanks, I appreciate your reply. This is going to be an adventure, lol.

If the pass from behind the line was to one of the ineligibles, and he touched it (but dropped it, making it an incomplete pass), wouldn't you give R two choices:

a. the play, which results in K getting the ball 1st and 10 from the previous spot using the downfield muff by R as the rationale, or

b. the penalty, which results in a 15 yard penalty plus B's ball since it came with a loss of down?

Loss of Down has nothing to do with it. Since K (the team) is in possession at the end of the down and K's foul(s) occurred after the kick ended, it is going to be K's ball 1st and 10 after applying any penalty you can think of.

5-1-3f

[Edited by dumbref on Aug 29th, 2005 at 01:35 PM]

Thanks for the 5-1-3f reference. I'm still thinking that you're mixing both the result of the play and the result of the penalty, and you generally can't have both...but I'll have to think that one through some more.

In looking at 5-1-3, however, why wouldn't subsection (e) apply? K did legally kick the ball and the ball did become dead with no player in possession (incomplete pass). Doesn't (e) say it should therefore go to R?

It seems to me that the play we've got has found a dilemma between (e) which includes a reference to player possession and (f) which refers to team possession.

5-1-3e is referring to when the "kick ends" with no player in possession. In this case, the kick has ended with K in team possession.

5-1-3f is talking about team possesion at the end of the "down" when R is first to touch the kick beyond the ENZ

What I don't understand about this play is why would the pass be legal. If R muffs the punt, the ball rolls back to K 45 recoverd by K. Now if K just falls on the ball it is 1 - 10 for K on K"s 45. Since the line to gain vanishes with the muff why would a forward pass be legal since the intend of K was to religuish the ball. Does the LOS also vanish except in case of a penalty?

I'm a newbie by the way.

Nothing that you have mentioned "vanishes." There are only two areas in the high school game which "disolve." They are the free-blocking zone and the expanded neutral zone during a scrimmage kick. The neutral zone still exists throughout the down. And in this play, even though the ball was legally kicked and it was touched beyond the neutral zone, the neutral zone still exists and since K snapped the ball they are still allowed to throw a legal forward pass from in or behind the neutral zone. That changes if there is any change of possession.

The touching by R means that either team can possess the ball at the end of the down and be awarded a first down.

Read 7-5-1 & 2-27 Team possession never changed. R only muffed the ball and never established possession. There fore the neutral zone is still in effect, the line to gain is still in effect and the previledge to pass is still in effect (once).

5-1-3 establishes the different ways a new series is awarded. The muff by R beyond the ENZ is just one of those. Hope that helped.

This play is a good reason to change the rule ... that the neutral zone disappears once a kick is touched by R beyond the expanded neutral zone.

If anyone knows rules or has comments that would contradict this change, I would like to hear them.

OK, I think I understand the logic. It's pretty obvious that there would be ineligible receivers illegally downfield so it would still be K's ball, moved back 5 yards and be 1-10 on K's 40. Do I have it right now if this is true?

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.

Since kick was touched beyone ENZ, new series for team in possession at end of down. Since K recovered behind ENZ, they may advance (including pass). 1st and 10 for K. Start the clock on the Ready.

A good point I had not thought of. But unless 2 "other thans" = a "just do it" - I think 3-4-2a says you would not start the clock with the ready if either team is awarded a new series following a legal kick.

[Edited by dumbref on Aug 30th, 2005 at 03:31 PM]

I believe you are correct, "other than" when you are not. :)

I totally skipped the 'legal kick' exception. thx

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.

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!

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

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.

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.

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]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

<a href='http://www.smileycentral.com/?partner=ZSzeb008_ZSzeb02822' target='_blank'><img src='http://smileys.smileycentral.com/cat/23/23_1_39.gif' alt='Help' border=0></a>

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.

REPLY: When did they <b><u>not</u></b> have possession??

Point taken, but I thought you said replay. I must have been mistaken.

REPLY: No...I think I did say 'replay.' I was basing that on NF 5-1-2 which says that you can't award a new series until you take into account all action (fouls) that occur during the down. Yes, K will normally be awarded a new series based upon R's touching beyond the neutral zone, but...their foul does throw a monkey wrench into that. Isn't that the same for all items in NF 5-1-3? Take 5-1-3a for example. "A new series is awarded to...Team A if the ball belongs to A on or beyond the line to-gain." Sure...but what if A fouls during that play? Do you still award the new series? Of course not. Why should it be any different for 5-1-3f? All of those 5-1-3 cases where a new series is <u>due</u> to be awarded are dependent upon fouls and their acceptance or declination. At least that's my opinion. I may be wrong, but there's nothing that clearly says that 5-1-3f should be excluded from the same 5-1-2 filter that the other 5-1-3 items need to pass through.

Likewise, for the play where both teams foul (IDF and DPI) this is a double foul since there is no change of possession, and you would replay the down. 'Clean hands' has no relevance in these plays since K was in team possession for the entire down.

I am still on the other side of the arguement from Bob M. even though I know that he knows his stuff. He wouldn't be writing articles in magazines if he didn't. I also acknowledge that possession does not actually change on the play we're discussing. My point is that the touching by R and the subsequent recovery by K is essentially identical to an actual change of possession. I realize that it does not fall within the definition of a change of possession and that is the weak point of my arguement.

I really don't have a problem if we should offset and replay 4th down on this play but it seems to me that the touching and recovery is so similar to an actual change of possession in every sense that K should have a choice to decline a penalty to keep the ball. But even saying that I do see the other side of the issue.

I too am on the other side of this.... The foul (IDF) occurred after the muff by R. The foul for IDF occurred
after the kick ended. So to my way of thinking and prior
discussions about this situation (this is always a favorite thing to bring up), it is going to be first down for whoever
has possession at the end of the down.

Key... R is the first to touch the scrimmage kick while it is beyond the line. There were no fouls prior to the kick ending. Thus a new series is awarded to the team in possession at the end of the down.

[Edited by l3will on Sep 16th, 2005 at 04:27 PM]

Separate scenarios
 

I've just found this forum, and I'm excited to find such an interesting thread. I've emailed our association to discuss this one. But I've expanded the scenario a bit. Hows this for a casebook example?

It is 4th and 10 from K's 40. K punts the ball to K's 49 where R1 muffs the ball. The ball rebounds back to K's 39 where K1 picks up the ball, scrambles, and throws forward pass from K's 35. (a) K2 is inelgibile and is downfield and the pass falls incomplete, (b) K4 is eligible and while attempting to catch the ball at K's 45 is intefered with by R1, (c) K5 is ineligible and catches the ball at K's 38 (d) K6 is ineligible and catches the ball at K's 45, (e) K7 is ineligible and is downfield while K8 is eligible and while attempting to catch the ball at K's 45 is interfered with by R2.

Now we just need the answers...

OK here's what our state rules clinician has said. Scenario 1 with just the IDF. 1st and 10 for K after marching off the penalty. Scenario 2 IDF and DFP double foul replay 4th down, since there was no actual change of possession "clean hands" doesn't apply.