The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football
Register FAQ Community Calendar Today's Posts Search

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 01, 2007, 01:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4
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.
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 02, 2007, 11:40am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 46
How do they get a 15 yard penalty out of an invalid fair catch signal?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 02, 2007, 12:33pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
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.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Thu Aug 02, 2007, 12:43pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
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] 
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 03, 2007, 07:50am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
REPLY: I can't see anything wrong with their "corrected ruling."
__________________
Bob M.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 03, 2007, 11:34am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Posts: 2,895
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
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 03, 2007, 11:59am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 4
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!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Fri Aug 03, 2007, 10:07pm
Chain of Fools
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 1,648
Illegal fair catch signal is...

normally given by a runner.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Sun Aug 05, 2007, 08:46pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 463
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).
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2007, 08:43pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 162
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2007, 08:58pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 618
Send a message via MSN to grantsrc
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.
__________________
Check out my football officials resource page at
http://resources.refstripes.com
If you have a file you would like me to add, email me and I will get it posted.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2007, 09:13pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 162
This is how it is enforced under NFHS rules.
Also this is how it is posted on your web site under NFHS foul enforcement.

Last edited by andy1033; Tue Aug 07, 2007 at 09:16pm.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Aug 07, 2007, 09:38pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 618
Send a message via MSN to grantsrc
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.
__________________
Check out my football officials resource page at
http://resources.refstripes.com
If you have a file you would like me to add, email me and I will get it posted.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 08, 2007, 07:57am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Wichita, KS
Posts: 945
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.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Wed Aug 08, 2007, 08:39am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Kansas City, MO
Posts: 618
Send a message via MSN to grantsrc
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.
__________________
Check out my football officials resource page at
http://resources.refstripes.com
If you have a file you would like me to add, email me and I will get it posted.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
correction altus Basketball 34 Thu Jan 06, 2005 11:43am
Ump correction - Should have called time? Gottagame2day Baseball 1 Mon Jun 02, 2003 11:29am
Timing correction. devdog69 Basketball 30 Wed Dec 19, 2001 11:58am
Correction.......with a Question Gulf Coast Blue Softball 4 Wed Jul 11, 2001 05:48pm


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:16am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1