NCAA Enforcement
 

4/1 @ A-30. While Kicker A1's punt is in the air, B55 blocks A56 below the waist at the B-40 yardline. The punt lands at the B-30 and A3 tries to down the ball at the B-33 but he muffs it there and the ball rolls into B99's leg at the B-32. A-55 falls on the ball at the B-31.

Rulings/References. Thanks

Canadian Rule
 

In Canada we have a lovely penalty called "No Yards".:p That's when a Team A player in an offside position in relation to the kicker is within 5 yards of the Team B punt returner.

So, in this play (which would be on 3rd down in Canada):p , we would have No Yards against Team A55, and Blocking Below the Waist on B55. The penalties are balanced out from the B-31 yard line. End result, Team B 1st and 10 at the B36 yard line.

In NCAA and NF the touching by B99 is considered a forced touching cuz A3 muffed it into B99. Thus, when A55 falls on the ball it is no different than if he downed the ball, so PSK would be in effect.

I'll let someone else jump in to say where the PSK spot is.

The PSK spot will be the end of the kick. The B31 in both cases.

Being hit by a ball muffed by Team A does not constitute forced touching by B. Therefore, A is in possession at the end of the down. PSK enforcement does not apply. A can take the 15 yard penalty from previous spot and an auto 1st or decline and take ball at the B-31, which is what they would choose.

I know the original post was about NCAA, but this is a great example of a couple of important differences between NCAA and NFHS rules:

Under NFHS
First, the muff by A would lead to the touching by B being ignored, which means that PSK enforcement will apply here.

Second, the right of B to take the ball at the spot of first touching is only cancelled if a penalty is accepted or if B fouls after touching the kick.

So, if the penalty is declined, B 1/10 @ B33. But the penalty will almost certainly be accepted, resulting in B 1/10 @ B16. (15 yards from the PSK spot, the end of the kick.)

In NF, rule 6-2-4 says "such touching is ignored if it is caused by K muffing the ball into R," thus we would have PSK.

In NCAA rule 6-3-4 says ""an inbounds player touched by the ball batted by an opponent is not deemed to have touched the ball," and AR 6-3-4-III discusses a "bat" but not a muff. Thus, it appears this is one of the differences between NF and NCAA. I think muffing the ball into another player should not be considered touching by R, but it appears it is in NCAA.

TXMike, would you give the benefit of the doubt to it being a "bat" instead of a "muff" so PSK would still be in effect, since the rule is to not give an advantage to the kicking team and allowing them a new set of downs when they kicked the ball? I'm not saying if it was an obvious muff, but one that could possibly considered a bat. Mike, do you think that a muff maybe would be a good addition to the NCAA rule?

This point is what caused so much discussion the other day at our study group that I thought I'd post the question here. As I read it, the "forced touching is no touching" only applies to 1) B being blocked into the ball by A and 2) B being hit by a ball batted by A. Nowhere does it state anything about a muff. But like MJT was alluding to, some of our guys felt that the spirit of the rules should include a muff for the same reasons as a bat or being blocked, however they agreed that it simply wasn't in the rules.
Thus, A has legal possession at the end of the down if the penalty is accepted because in doing so, the illegal touching is ignored. Therefore, we can't have PSK enforcement (10-2-2-e, Exc. 3-e)

So we can either have a 15 yard penalty enforced from the PS with an auto 1st down, or if A declines then B gets the ball 1/10 at the spot of illegal touching at the B-33

Head up my arse as usual. Got so wrapped up about the nonexistent PSK that I forgot if the penalty was declined then A had an illegal touch problem.

I do not want to make a cheap call on a bat because that could bring with it yet another flag. A muff is a muff and a bat is a bat. It defintiely needs to be a bat to be called a bat. In principle I do not think B should be held responsible for being hit by a ball that was already muffed by A. Problem is that if A muffs and then B tries to play the ball but muffs do we exempt that muff also? It would have to be narrowly defined someway, perhaps another definition of what touching is.

R muffing the ball after K muffed it would not be considered "muffing it into R" in NF, so if that happened, we would definitely have K in possession at the end of the down so NO PSK. In NCAA we don't have a problem either cuz they do not have the "muffed into R" rule. Muffing it into R in NF would be a muff by K that then touched R, but not if R muffed it. By definition, a muff and a touch are different in NF, so I we would not "exempt" R's muff if it occured.

I would go with this: if B has enough time to see it coming and dodge, or if he moves into the path of the ball, and then he chooses to play the ball and muffs it, then his touch should not be ignored. On the other hand, if A bats the ball right at him and B muffs it in a more-or-less reflexive grab at the ball, then B's touch should be ignored, even though he tried to play the ball.