Incorrect NFHS Correction

[The Roamin' Umpire]

The problem is the exact same one we've had all along with any kick that is recovered by K: 2-16-2h(5) is worded incorrectly.

It says: "And K does not have possession of the ball when the down ends and will not be next to put the ball in play." (emphasis mine)

The problem is that little word "and" in the middle. Logically, it means that both parts of the clause must be true; when (for example) K downs a punt or it goes out of bounds, the first part ("K does not have possession of the ball") is false. So, as the rule is worded, PSK should not apply when K downs a punt.

But this is not what the NFHS meant. What they meant is that you should ignore the first part of the clause entirely, and treat it as if it simply said "K will not be next to put the ball in play." The case book rulings all treat the rule as if it reads this way, so that (continuing the example) PSK does apply when K downs a punt.

Applying that principle to your original play, since it was 4th down and K has not reached the line-to-gain, K will not be next to put the ball in play. Since all of the other conditions are true, PSK applies and the corrected ruling is "correct" (even if it doesn't actually follow the rule as written).

[andy1033]

Team K must not be in legal possession of the ball at the end of the down. By legal possession, we mean in possession such that they would next be entitled to put the ball in play. This implies that if R fouls in a manner such that all other PSK criteria are met, and the scrimmage kick is recovered by K beyond the NZ prior to any touching by R (a first touching situation), R will be in legal possession at the conclusion of the down and PSK enforcement will still apply. This also applies to a kick that crosses the ENZ and goes back behind LOS and is recovered by K and does not get to line of gain.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by andy1033

Team K must not be in legal possession of the ball at the end of the down. By legal possession, we mean in possession such that they would next be entitled to put the ball in play. This implies that if R fouls in a manner such that all other PSK criteria are met, and the scrimmage kick is recovered by K beyond the NZ prior to any touching by R (a first touching situation), R will be in legal possession at the conclusion of the down and PSK enforcement will still apply. This also applies to a kick that crosses the ENZ and goes back behind LOS and is recovered by K and does not get to line of gain.

This is not true for Fed ball. For NCAA, yes, that is correct. But Fed ball, if K is possessing the ball, that nullifies PSK. The Fed does not have "legal possession" as part of the equation or definitions.

[andy1033]

This is how it is enforced under NFHS rules.
Also this is how it is posted on your web site under NFHS foul enforcement.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by andy1033

This is how it is enforced under NFHS rules.
Also this is how it is posted on your web site under NFHS foul enforcement.

Rules references please for the terms "legal possession." We went 'round and 'round last year on a play like this on the Fed board. I argued that this WAS PSK because of the whole legal possession aspect. But Fed doesn't have that term in the rule book. I got all hot to trot on this on the Fed board until I realized I was adding something to the ruling that simply doesn't exist. That being the term "legal possession.

If you look at the criteria for PSK to apply, the one that hangs up this play is: "K does not have possession of the ball when the down ends and not be next to put the ball in play." The emphasis is my own to point out that both of those things need to be satisfied in order for PSK to apply. Since K is holding the football, he is, by definition, possessing the ball. Now is his possession legal? Doesn't matter since that doesn't apply in Fed ball. Since K is possessing the ball we don't even need to get into the next part of this statement.

Personally, I like the NCAA version of this much better. It doesn't seem fair that K can get a "cheap" first down out of a play like this.

As for the files on my site, I am merely the host and not the author and do not attest to the accuracy of the contents therein. Ideally I would have loads of time to go through each individual file but I trust the authors and post them as I receive them. There might be a mistake in that file or it could be in reference to the NCAA ruling.

[Warrenkicker]

Obviously we have a poorly written rule.

We have two criteria under 2-16-2h5:
K not in possession
K won't be next to snap the ball.

By placing an "and" between those means that the statement is never true when K ends the play with the ball. That would include just downing the ball.

K punts, 4th and 5, from K40, R1 holds at the 50. K downs the punt at R25. So Grant, are you going to call R's hold a PSK foul or give K a first down at the 50? The motivation behind PSK is to not give K cheap first downs when they have already voluntarily given the ball back to R.

If you look back at the criteria there seems to be a question there. How could K be the next to snap the ball if they don't have possession of the ball at the end of the play? Don't the two statements contradict each other? Should there be an "OR" between the statements or should, as some have suggested, we just delete the "K not in possession" portion?

6.5.7 A has a correction and is very clear that even if K possesses the ball at the end of the play when there was a foul by R that meets the first 4 criteria of PSK that the foul will be marked off against R and R given the ball. And why? Because K will not be the next to put the ball in play. That tells me that K being in possession of the ball is not important. Who would snap the ball next is important.

But that's just the way I read it.

[grantsrc]

Originally Posted by Warrenkicker

Obviously we have a poorly written rule.

We have two criteria under 2-16-2h5:
K not in possession
K won't be next to snap the ball.

By placing an "and" between those means that the statement is never true when K ends the play with the ball. That would include just downing the ball.

K punts, 4th and 5, from K40, R1 holds at the 50. K downs the punt at R25. So Grant, are you going to call R's hold a PSK foul or give K a first down at the 50? The motivation behind PSK is to not give K cheap first downs when they have already voluntarily given the ball back to R.

If you look back at the criteria there seems to be a question there. How could K be the next to snap the ball if they don't have possession of the ball at the end of the play? Don't the two statements contradict each other? Should there be an "OR" between the statements or should, as some have suggested, we just delete the "K not in possession" portion?

6.5.7 A has a correction and is very clear that even if K possesses the ball at the end of the play when there was a foul by R that meets the first 4 criteria of PSK that the foul will be marked off against R and R given the ball. And why? Because K will not be the next to put the ball in play. That tells me that K being in possession of the ball is not important. Who would snap the ball next is important.

But that's just the way I read it.

It funny you mention downing the ball. I thought of that exact same thing last night/this morning while thinking of this thread. I agree with everything you said above. I think the rule is poorly written and doesn't truly acheive the intent the rule was written for. Admittedly, I haven't even begun looking at HS rules this fall. My wife had our first child just over a week ago so I am on survival mode. My football focus is on NCAA right now. That and dirty diapers.