Ruling Please
 

4th and 6 from K's 30 yard line. K punts and the ball crosses the LOS. R fouls beyond the ENZ. The untouched kick bounces behind the LOS where K recovers and advances 4 yards. K did not make the line to gain. What are the enforcement options?

This isn't a PSK foul since K has the ball at the end of the down. K will take the penalty, enforced from the previous spot, and repeat 4th down.

I agree with Andrew. You will have to explain that one to R's coach.

Same here.

The following are tips for determining PSK enforcement:

1. Did the window open (ball was snapped, kicked and past the ENZ)?
2. Did the window close (kick ended by rule)?
3. Did R end up with the ball or will R next put the ball in play?
4. Did R’s foul occur with the window open and prior to it closing?

If you answered yes to all of the above, PSK enforcement is applicable.

Is # 3 correct?

Depending on which code you're talking about, NFHS or NCAA, no and yes.

For Fed, R HAS to be in possession of the ball at the end of the down. No ifs, ands, or buts, about it. For NCAA, you can say next to put the ball in play because they draw a distinction between "possession" and "belongs to". The ball may be possessed by K, but in actuality it belongs to R, therefore PSK will apply.

But Grant, if R downs the punt as it is rolling slowly beyond the NZ, they are in possession, but PSK will apply.

REPLY: Monte...I think you meant to describe a scrimmage kick play where K downs the punt as it is rolling slowly beyond the NZ. Right?

Here are the requiremenst for PSK from Rule 2.

-----------------------------------------------------------
Post-scrimmage kick — a foul by R when the foul occurs:
1. During scrimmage kick plays, other than a try or successful field goal.
2. During a scrimmage kick play in which the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone.
3. Beyond the expanded neutral zone.
4. Before the end of a kick.
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.
-----------------------------------------------------------

The play meets all the requirements for numbers 1 thru 4. The question is, does this meet the requirements for number 5?

There are times when K may be in possession of the ball at the end of the down (i.e. when K "downs" the ball), but aren't entitled to put the ball in play We treat these fouls by R as PSK fouls (and this is honestly when most PSK fouls occur).

Why is this play different? K is in possession, but they won't next be putting the ball in play (just as if K had downed the ball).

My gut says this is NOT a PSK foul because K's possession did not kill the play but I can't find any rule support where the language makes this clear.

Here's my question: what happens to first touching when there is an accepted penalty?

Hint: See 5-1-6

K can legally recover the untouched kick behind the NZ and advance it. K is in possession when the down ended, so this does not meet requirement 5 for PSK.

Assess the penalty from the provious spot and replay 4th down.

The fifth element of PSK is not written very well because it seems inconsistent in how it is applied.

Given the other four elements of PSK are met for the foul, in the play where K catches (downs) a punt beyond the neutral zonel AND in the play where K recovers behind the neutral zone and fails to reach the line to gain, by definition, K is in possession at the end of the down. However, they won't be putting the ball in play next. So neither play meets the requirements of the fifth element of PSK. However, one of these is treated as a PSK foul and the other is treated as a previous spot foul? This is where I see the inconsistency.

If this is indeed how the NF wants this enforced, I would propose the following change to element #5. If K's touching or possession of the ball is the reason the ball become dead AND K won't next be putting the ball in play

If they want it enforced the other way, simply change the word AND to an OR, or simply eliminate the "possession by K" part of element #5.

I'm not trying to be argumentative. Just trying to figure out how they might fix the inconsistency in the rule.

REPLY: I agree with Mike that the last criteria is not written well at all. The biggest problem is that PSK enforcement relies on the concept of possession of the ball once the down ends, but the Federation rules only define possession for live balls. The concept of possession of a dead ball doesn't really exist. I know that there's been a rule change request submitted to the Fed to clean up the wording of this last criteria. I hope it passes. It would most likely end up as an 'editorial change' -- not a substantive rule change.