Case Book Question

[Theisey]

Well, who's in possession of the ball when the IW is blown. Where is that clearly defined? Is it really team-R or is it really still team-K.

I just looked into the 2008 "Redding" guide for NFHS football and a similar play says that team-R is not in possession at this time. Therefore if that is correct, and their play result says so, team-R is not in possession. That means PSK does not apply.

Don't kill the messenger here... I thought I new this area of the game cold but now I'm not so sure I do.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by Theisey

Well, who's in possession of the ball when the IW is blown. Where is that clearly defined? Is it really team-R or is it really still team-K.

The IW with the (loose) ball rolling around makes the ball dead, which ends the kick, just as if the ball had come to rest on the ground. Why wouldn't R possess the ball? Doesn't it matter that the loose ball was kicked?

I'm not looking to kill a messenger, I just don't see the rationale for the message.

[Sonofanump]

I have always had a problem with this exact play. (in therory not ever on the field)

I think the rules provide for a previous spot enforcement.

Philosophically, it makes too much sense not to enforce it as PSK from the dead ball spot.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: This play has an asterisk in front of it, indicating that it is a change since last season. In last season's case book, the ruling was to penalize from the previous spot. Now in 2008, with a clarification to the PSK criteria, one that the Fed calls an editorial change, and a mostly insignificanrewording of the IW procedures, I can't understand what caused the change the the 4.2.3 ruling.

After all, as Tom pointed out, absent the foul, who would next be entitled to put the ball in play? It would be K because of the IW. If the Fed wants it different, they better find a way to get the rules to coincide with that desire.

[Mike L]

What I think the NFHS has intended (and yes, this is guessing) is the IW has created a dead ball spot much like if the kick had just rolled dead with no-one attempting to touch it.
Like Bob said, if this is what they want, it would be nice if it was clearly spelled out in the rules.

[mbyron]

What's the "god rule" in football -- you know, the one that gives officials the power to rule on anything not specifically covered in the rules?

[Bob M.]

REPLY: The problem, mbyron, is that it is covered in both the rule book and in the case book. But the rule book ruling would conflict with the case book ruling. And the Fed has no precedence statement to tell you what book rules when there's a conflict.

[Bob M.]

Originally Posted by Mike L

...Like Bob said, if this is what they want, it would be nice if it was clearly spelled out in the rules.

REPLY: ...and clearly spelled out exactly how they expect us to officiate it. If the kick is in-flight when the IW is blown, exactly how do we determine the PSK spot ???

I agree with the esteemed Mr. Heisey

[MRH]

Our state rep contacted the NFHS. The ruling in this situation is wrong. Per NFHS - this entire casebook play should be crossed out.

[Mike L]

Originally Posted by Bob M.

REPLY: ...and clearly spelled out exactly how they expect us to officiate it. If the kick is in-flight when the IW is blown, exactly how do we determine the PSK spot ???

I'm guessing at the NFHS thought process (such as it is), but I would venture we have to take a WAG.

You're correct: "The point of the PSK EXCEPTION is to GIVE R possession" but only if certain criteria are met. And one of those criteria is the "K will not be next to put the ball in play." Since there was an IW during a legal kick, who will next put the ball in play?

Again, I'm guessing at the NFHS thought process, K gets a choice. Enforce the penalty as per PSK, or decline the penalty and get a do over on the down.

Aaaah, it would be nice if they could at least attempt to take the guess work out of rule enforcement, huh?