The Official Forum

The Official Forum (https://forum.officiating.com/)
-   Football (https://forum.officiating.com/football/)
-   -   Incorrect NFHS Correction (https://forum.officiating.com/football/37118-incorrect-nfhs-correction.html)

Ken-PA Wed Aug 01, 2007 01:58pm
Incorrect NFHS Correction
 
The NFHS has now listed Case Book Revisions/Clarifications. The following change has been included for 6.5.7 SITUATION A:

Situation: Fourth and 5 for K on its own 9-yard line. K1's punt is very high and short, but it goes into the expanded neutral zone. R1 gives an invalid fair-catch signal at K's 20-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.

Original 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 fouls and accepts the play, it will be R's ball first and goal at the 10.

Corrected Ruling: K undoubtedly will accept the penalty for R1's invalid fair catch giving R the ball at K's 25 yard line after enforcement. If Kdeclines the fouls and accepts the play, it will be R's ball first and goal at the 10.

I disagree with the both rulings. Post-scrimmage enforcement does not apply since K has possession at the end of the down. Penalty acceptance by K results in a five yard markoff enforced from previous spot and repeat of the down. Ball will be snapped by K at the 14-yard line. Down will be either fourth or first depending on the box position relative to the down marker tape at the beginning of the down. If penalty is declined, it will by R's ball first and goal at the 10.

Niner Thu Aug 02, 2007 11:40am
How do they get a 15 yard penalty out of an invalid fair catch signal?

HLin NC Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:33pm
Isn't there something further about "K will......
 
"not be next to put the ball in play"? The kick was untouched and K had possession at the end of the down but had not met the line to gain. K gained possession but will not be next to put the ball in play.

The foul occurred behind the basic spot, which was the end of the kick at the 9; (invalid signal from at the 15 yl.) so 5 yd. penalty assessed from the spot of the foul would be of put in play under the 20 IF you are using PSK enforcement.

This appears to be the rational behind the case play, I'm just not sure its correct either.

I'll try to look at Reddings tonight.

HLin NC Thu Aug 02, 2007 12:43pm
This is last year's case book 10-4-3
 
HTML Code:
10.4.3 Situation H: K2 punts from the 50-yard line. The punt crosses the neutral zone, bounces at the R45 and then rebounds back to K's 48-yard line where R4 recovers. Prior to the end of the kick, R6 clips K11 at R's 40-yard line.
Ruling: This foul satisfies all the conditions for post-scrimmage kick enforcement, so the basic spot is K's 48-yard line. Since R6's foul occurs behind the basic spot, the penalty is enforced from the spot of the foul. R is penalized 15 yards, making it R's ball first and 10 at R's 25-yard line. (2-16-2g)



 [See corresponding Rule Article for Situation 10.4.3]

Bob M. Fri Aug 03, 2007 07:50am
REPLY: I can't see anything wrong with their "corrected ruling."

Robert Goodman Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:34am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ken-PA
The NFHS has now listed Case Book Revisions/Clarifications. The following change has been included for 6.5.7 SITUATION A:

Situation: Fourth and 5 for K on its own 9-yard line. K1's punt is very high and short, but it goes into the expanded neutral zone. R1 gives an invalid fair-catch signal at K's 20-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.
Are all invalid fair catch signals in Fed now illegal fair catch signals?

Is it possible to make an illegal fair catch signal if the ball comes down in the ENZ? Maybe the quote was supposed to read, "...it goes beyond the expanded...", which is how I'd make sense of the "but" it's prefaced by.

Robert

Ken-PA Fri Aug 03, 2007 11:59am
Retraction
 
I retract my assertion that the corrected ruling is not correct. Since K will not be the next to put the ball in play, PSK does apply. Markoff is 5 yards from the spot of the foul as it is behind the basic PSK spot (end of the kick). If this had occurred on a down other than fourth, I believe my assertion would have been correct; but in this case, I did blow the call!

HLin NC Fri Aug 03, 2007 10:07pm
Illegal fair catch signal is...
 
normally given by a runner.

The Roamin' Umpire Sun Aug 05, 2007 08:46pm
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 Tue Aug 07, 2007 08:43pm
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 Tue Aug 07, 2007 08:58pm
Quote:
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 Tue Aug 07, 2007 09:13pm
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 Tue Aug 07, 2007 09:38pm
Quote:
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 Wed Aug 08, 2007 07:57am
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 Wed Aug 08, 2007 08:39am
Quote:
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.

grantsrc Wed Aug 08, 2007 10:09am
[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. Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:22pm
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. Wed Aug 08, 2007 12:29pm
Quote:
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 Wed Aug 08, 2007 08:27pm
Quote:
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:
<TABLE cellSpacing=4 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtMdBld vAlign=top noWrap>6.5.7 Situation A:</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtMd vAlign=top align=left colSpan=4>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.</TD></TR><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtMd vAlign=top align=right>Ruling:</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtMd align=left colSpan=4>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.</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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:
<TABLE cellSpacing=4 border=0><TBODY><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld vAlign=top align=middle colSpan=2>g.</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSm vAlign=top colSpan=3>Post-scrimmage kick — a foul by R when the foul occurs:</TD></TR><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=3> </TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld vAlign=top align=middle>1.</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSm vAlign=top colSpan=2>During scrimmage kick plays, other than a try or successful field goal. Yes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=3> </TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld vAlign=top align=middle>2.</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSm vAlign=top colSpan=2>During a scrimmage kick play in which the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone. Yes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=3> </TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld vAlign=top align=middle>3.</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSm vAlign=top colSpan=2>Beyond the expanded neutral zone. Yes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=3> </TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld vAlign=top align=middle>4.</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSm vAlign=top colSpan=2>Before the end of a kick. Yes</TD></TR><TR><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld style="PADDING-RIGHT: 3px; PADDING-LEFT: 3px; PADDING-BOTTOM: 3px; PADDING-TOP: 3px" colSpan=3> </TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSmBld vAlign=top align=middle>5.</TD><TD class=nfhsMainFtSm vAlign=top colSpan=2>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</TD></TR></TBODY></TABLE>
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 Wed Aug 08, 2007 09:28pm
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 Thu Aug 09, 2007 08:48am
Quote:
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.


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 01:39am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1