Scrimmage kick caseplay

[ljudge]

If K illegally bats the ball it's not an automatic double foul. At least that's the way I understand it. I believe R has the penalty option here since their foul was a psk foul. R will more than likely accept K's foul to create a double foul as they woudn't want the ball on their own 1, but they do have that option. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

[kentref]

Originally Posted by ljudge

If K illegally bats the ball it's not an automatic double foul. At least that's the way I understand it. I believe R has the penalty option here since their foul was a psk foul. R will more than likely accept K's foul to create a double foul as they woudn't want the ball on their own 1, but they do have that option. Someone feel free to correct me if I'm wrong.

I agree. With PSK enforcement, R is the last in posssession and therefore has the option to decline K's foul and be penalized for their foul. Also agree that R would likely choose to enforce the foul on K and thus create a double foul and replay of the down.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Take a look at 6-2-4: "Any kicker may catch or recover a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the neutral zone or the expanded neutral zone, provided such kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time of touching. Such touching is ignored if it is caused by K pushing or blocking R into contact with the ball or it is caused by K legally batting or muffing the ball into R..."

As silly as this seems, if K illegally bats the ball into R, then R is not protected by the second sentence of this rule. Therefore, K would be the next to put the ball in play. And therefore, R's foul cannot be a PSK foul. Thus, double fouls.

Now, I've got a bunch of problems with this, not the least of which is the use of the word "kicker" in 6-2-4 (and 6-2-3). But the biggest problem is that 2-16-2g5 (the last of the conditions for a PSK foul) can be self-fulfilling: "K does not have possession of the ball when the down ends and will not be next to put the ball in play." There are a bunch of situations where, if you treat the foul as PSK, K will not be next to put the ball in play, but if you don't treat it as PSK, they will be! Whichever way you choose is right!

There are a few ways to fix it. Easiest, I think, would be to change 2-16-2g5 to read: "R would be next to put the ball in play if all penalties were declined."

Anyone know how the NFHS actually does its rulebook edits? Because I'd love to do some copy editing for them.

[Niner]

The foul by K is during a loose ball; the basic spot is the previous spot.

[ljudge]

[QUOTE=The Roamin' Umpire]Take a look at 6-2-4: "Any kicker may catch or recover a scrimmage kick while it is beyond the neutral zone or the expanded neutral zone, provided such kick has been touched by a receiver who was clearly beyond the neutral zone at the time of touching. Such touching is ignored if it is caused by K pushing or blocking R into contact with the ball or it is caused by K legally batting or muffing the ball into R..."

As silly as this seems, if K illegally bats the ball into R, then R is not protected by the second sentence of this rule. Therefore, K would be the next to put the ball in play. And therefore, R's foul cannot be a PSK foul. Thus, double fouls.
QUOTE]

RU - I like the way you stated this (putting emphasis on legally). So, if K bats the ball toward R's goal line it's an illegal bat, hence double foul. If he bats it away you have in illegal act but not a foul (first touching) but FT is still ignored because R fouled after FT was committed so the ruling would be R's ball at the 1 after the half-the-distance penalty.

Agree?

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Yeah, that sums up my interpretation pretty well.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I agree that it certainly does sound silly that you would ignore R's touching when it results from a legal bat by K, but not from an illegal bat. I can't think of any justifiable reason why an illegal bat of the ball into R should not also be ignored. I'm sure they figured that the penalty for the illegal bat could always be accepted and the touching would be immaterial. But I'm equally sure that they never considered this play where an R foul could possibly be PSK in nature. Let's think this one through and maybe suggest that the Fed (as a editorial change) eliminate the word "legally" from 6-2-4.