Incorrect NFHS Correction

[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 Now in the past case book plays have superseded the rule books.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?