Incorrect NFHS Correction

[grantsrc]

[quote=Warrenkicker]we just delete the "K not in possession" portion?
[\quote]

We cannot delete this because if R touches the ball and K recovers, K is in possession and would be next to put the ball in play.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The problem with the way the Fed PSK rule is written is in the use of the word "possession" in the last criterion. They're using it to describe who 'owns' the dead ball after the down ends, but the word "possession" is a defined term that apllies only to a live ball !!! There's no such thing as possession of a dead ball. Actually both rule books (Fed and NCAA) suffer the same problem. Both often use the word "possession" in reference to a dead ball. When it comes to PSK especially, these two concepts collide to create confusion. There are a number of plays where the down ends with the ball in Team A's possession, but PSK enforcement is called for:
(1) Scrimmage kick untouched by B is recovered by A beyond the neutral zone
(2) Scrimmage kick rolls out of bounds beyond the neutral zone
(3) Scrimmage kick rolls into B's endzone
(4) Official blows the ball dead when the scrimmage kick comes to rest with no player attempting to recover it

In all four of these situations Team A is in team possession at the instant the down ends. The right to next snap will revert to Team B in all such situations, but that's not part of the definition of "possession."

There are, in my opinion, three ways to fix the problem:
(1) Create a new defined term ("legal possession"?) which signifies 'permanent' custody of a dead ball; i.e. having the right to next put the ball in play by snap or free kick.
(2) Revise the definition of team possession to include having the right to next put a dead ball into play (this one may have some downside--haven't thought it completely through), or
(3) Changing the last criterion for PSK enforcement to read "Absent the foul, Team A would not next be entitled to put the ball in play."

And by the way, Grant, the words 'legal possession' do not appear in the Fed rule book. They do, however, appear in the NCAA rule book exactly twice (both times in Rule 5), but it is also never defined there either.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by grantsrc

We cannot delete this because if R touches the ball and K recovers, K is in possession and would be next to put the ball in play.

REPLY: But you could, because in your play, K would be next entitled to put the ball in play. That would be sufficient to rule out PSK.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

And by the way, Grant, the words 'legal possession' do not appear in the Fed rule book. They do, however, appear in the NCAA rule book exactly twice (both times in Rule 5), but it is also never defined there either.

Bob, that's my point. It doesn't appear in the Fed book but the term was being used in some arguments above. I'm all for using it if it exists, but it doesn't exist in Fed ball. I also like the fact that NCAA also has the "belongs to" designation. I think that would help clear up some of the PSK confusion too.

And after reading the case book play clearer, I wonder if PSK should apply according to the way things are written. I think PSK should apply, but looking at things, I am getting stuck on it. Help me out here guys.

From the 2006 Case book:

6.5.7 Situation A:	Fourth and 5 for K on its own 9-yard line. K1’s punt is very high and very short, but it goes beyond the neutral zone. R1 gives an invalid fair-catch signal at K’s 14-yard line and the untouched kick hits the ground and rebounds behind the neutral zone where K1 recovers and is downed at his own 10-yard line.
Ruling:	K undoubtedly will accept the penalty for R1’s foul which puts the ball at the 14-yard line and results in a first down for K. If K declines the foul and accepts the play, it will be R’s ball first and goal at the 10.

Now the change this year gives R the ball at the 25 after enforcement from the spot of the foul. Let's look at the criteria for PSK and if they apply for this changed play:

g.		Post-scrimmage kick — a foul by R when the foul occurs:
			1.	During scrimmage kick plays, other than a try or successful field goal. Yes
			2.	During a scrimmage kick play in which the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone. Yes
			3.	Beyond the expanded neutral zone. Yes
			4.	Before the end of a kick. Yes
			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. NO

I still say that according to the definition of possession, the ball at the end of the down is possessed by K. Now do they "legally" possess the ball? No. Does the ball "belong" to them legally? No. But unfortunately we don't have those terms in place in the Fed rule books. Now in the past case book plays have superseded the rule books. An example that I'm thinking of is face guarding in the case book prior to it being in the rule book. But in that example, the case book play never specifically over ruled the rule book. In the example we're talking about here, I think the case book is in direct conflict with PSK rules because of the possession aspect. I think the spirit of the change is accurate, but do we have rules support when you look at the definitions?

[MJT]

Grant, you'd better change the location of the invalid FC signal in your above post to not confuse people. You put it at the 14 and it should be at the 20.

I think the fact that this case play shows the result of the play did include PSK should indicate to us that although the "possession" definition is not worded the best, as Bob pointed out, we can figure out how #5 in the PSK rules is to be interpretted.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by MJT

Grant, you'd better change the location of the invalid FC signal in your above post to not confuse people. You put it at the 14 and it should be at the 20.

I think the fact that this case play shows the result of the play did include PSK should indicate to us that although the "possession" definition is not worded the best, as Bob pointed out, we can figure out how #5 in the PSK rules is to be interpretted.

The location in my play was from the '06 case book and has been corrected in this year's changes.

So bottom line is, PSK should apply here even though we have no rules support to justify so? We do have a case book play, which is a step in the right direction, but if this is the direction the Fed wants to head, shouldn't they ammend the part in rule two that I posted above? That way we have the rules support too.