Scrimmage kick caseplay

[kentref]

Page 68 of the 2005 Rules Study Guide (NFHS) play #16.
On a punt, the untouched ball is bouncing at Team R's five yard line when K26 bats the ball into R32. While the ball is rolling loose, R65 clips at the 10 yard line. The ball is recovered by prone K10 at the two yard line.

The ruling given in the book is that it will be Team R's ball, first and 10 at their two yard line.

The ruling apparently assumes that Team K declines the R penalty. If Team K accepts the clipping penalty, what is the enforcement spot?

[ljudge]

The 2-yard line, which is the end of the kick.

Question now for everyone. I say PSK applies because R is technically in possession when the down ends (even though K has the ball in his hands). Anyone disagree?

[spits]

Why not 1st touching at the 5.

[kentref]

The first touching by K is ignored because R fouled on the play.

Does PSK apply? My first thought was that it didn't, but even though K recovered the ball, they will not retain the ball for the next down so essentially R is in possession and PSK would apply. Enforcement of R's clipping foul moves the ball to the 1 yard line, first and 10 for R.

How about this twist: The batting by K is not back towards their own goal line and K is flagged for illegal batting on the play. Now there are two live ball fouls on the same play. What's the ruling in this situation?

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Originally Posted by kentref

Page 68 of the 2005 Rules Study Guide (NFHS) play #16.
On a punt, the untouched ball is bouncing at Team R's five yard line when K26 bats the ball into R32. While the ball is rolling loose, R65 clips at the 10 yard line. The ball is recovered by prone K10 at the two yard line.

The ruling given in the book is that it will be Team R's ball, first and 10 at their two yard line.

The ruling apparently assumes that Team K declines the R penalty. If Team K accepts the clipping penalty, what is the enforcement spot?

Wow, after paging through the book, I conclude that this makes for a very complex ruling. Let's assume for the moment that the bat by K26 is legal. Then:

• This is first touching by K26. (6-2-5)
• The touch by R32 is ignored. (6-2-4)
• Since R has not (officially) touched the ball yet, the clip by R65 will only cancel R's right to take the ball at the spot of first touching if it is accepted. (5-1-6, 6-2-5)
• If the penalty is declined, this is easy: R1/10 @ R5 (the spot of first touching).
• If the penalty is accepted, the clip meets all of the conditions for a PSK foul, except maybe the possession rule, because:
  • 5-1-3e doesn't apply.
  • 5-1-3f doesn't apply (the touching by R is ignored).
  • 5-1-3g doesn't apply (the right of R to take the ball at the spot of first touching is cancelled).
  • 6-2-4 suggests that K may not recover this kick, but it doesn't really say, either.
  • In other words, there's no rule to specifically tell us who will be awarded the new series.

On the field, I'm going to say that K does not have rights to the ball, so this is a PSK foul, and if K accepts the penalty, it's enforced from the end of the kick. R1/10 @ R1.


If the bat by K is illegal, then ironically enough 6-2-4 does not say the touch by R32 is ignored (), meaning that K would get to keep the ball if all fouls are declined. So the clip is not a PSK foul, which gives us simple offsetting fouls. Replay the down.

[kentref]

Originally Posted by ljudge

The 2-yard line, which is the end of the kick.

Question now for everyone. I say PSK applies because R is technically in possession when the down ends (even though K has the ball in his hands). Anyone disagree?

It initially seems like it shouldn't be a PSK enforcement, but like you say, R is technically in possession and they will have the ball for the next down. I agree that you enforce the clip using PSK.

Roamin Umpire brings up the point I was wondering about - whether an "illegal bat" by K causes an offsetting foul situation (replay the down)? Seems like the Fed might want to look at 6-2-4 and add "illegally" to the phrase??

[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.