Case Book Question
 

4.2.3 SITUATION E: K's ball, 4th and 12, orn R's 45-yard line. K8's punt is rollin on R's 16 when an inadvertent whistle sounds. R76 blocks K84 in the back on R's 22-yard line during the down prior to the whistle. RULING: If the penalty is accepted, the foul takes precedence over the inadvertent whistle and results in post-scrimmage kick enforcement. If the penalty is declined, the inadvertent whistle during a loose ball play dictates a replay of the down. (2-16-2h; 4-2-3)

Can anybody explain to my where the enforcement would be from? Would it be R's 16 - even though the kick never ended?

....or is this an error in the book?

If it said "rollin on R's 16," yeah, that's an error. :)

The kick ended at the time the IW was blown.
Where ever the ball was is the end-of-kick stop. Hopefully one of the officials was alert enough to bag that spot.

But Thiesey, by saying that the R16 is the end of the kick, do you not imply that R would conceivably be able to play the ball from that spot had they not fouled prior to the IW?

After I got home and has some free time to review the changed IW section in rule 4, I thought it would to allow for PSK to apply in as in this play.

However, the more I read the section, the more I became convinced that PSK does not apply and therefore the penalty will probably be accepted by team-K and marked off from the previous spot.

Maybe their intent was to allow PSK, but I don't see that in the way the rule was rewritten. To bad as it would be have been a better solution to a bad situation.

So you'd give K a first down in the OP? (Plus 15 more when you kick out the R coach?)
________
Easy vape review

Why wouldn't PSK apply? The foul occurred on R, after the kick, and before the kick ended.

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

I'd say (just IMHO) that the rules book would have precedence. The case book seems to me to just be a supplemental guide to help you understand the rules book's practical applications.

Cliff's Notes for the New Testament, rather than The Gospel itself, to make an analogy.

The President of my local association has stated that this foul would be either penalized from the spot of the foul, or replay the down (K's option obviously).

REPLY: Except that the NF Rule Book and Case Book have the same author...unlike the Cliff Notes and the New Testament ;)

How did he come up with the spot of the foul? :confused:

If you beleive this is PSK, then the end of the kick spot is on the R-16 and that's behind the spot of the foul.

I think the case book result needs a little NFHS comment. It appears to me that the IW just negated any possible PSK enforcement.

You don't remember St. Cliff? ;)

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 ???:confused::confused::confused:

I agree with the esteemed Mr. Heisey

This is an Error per NFHS
 

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

The point of PSK enforcement is R has possession, which R doesn't when whistle is blown. Ball is still in motion: kick hasn't ended. I got PS unless NF has more clarification somewhere.

The point of the PSK EXCEPTION is to GIVE R possession, despite their penalty during the loose ball. It is in the spirit of this exception (if not the letter) to give R the ball on an IW that causes the kick to end.

REPLY: 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?

That's why this case play is in conflict with the rule book.

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

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?

So I guess that means they still are deciding how this particular play should be handled. While that's all well and good in theory, how should we enforce this penalty in practice?

I personally will be following the lead of my president and giving K the option of enforcing the penalty at the spot of the foul (R's ball) or replaying the down.

BUT, hopefully we will never run into this situation.

REPLY: Regardless of where the kick ended??? So if R pushed K in the back at R's 40 and the kick was rolling at R's 15 when the IW sounded, your association president is saying to enforce from R's 40 ?? That isn't even PSK.

I believe that if I am going to enforce PSK as the case book states, then I would hang my hat on the following:

2-24-2 - The kick ends when a player gains possession OR when the ball becomes dead while not in player possession. (note here that it does not state that the ball has come to a stop)

4-2-2j - The ball becomes dead and the down is ended...when an official sounds his whistle inadvertently.

10-4-3 - The basic spot is the spot where the kick ends when R commits a post-scrimmage kick foul (2-16-2h). R fouls behind the post-scrimmage kick spot are spot fouls.

The kick and down ended, and the ball became dead, when the official blew his whistle. For this play, the enforcement spot would be the end of the kick at the R-16. If the foul had occurred behind the PSK spot, then we would enforce from the spot of the foul.

Now if, as Bob M. questioned, the ball was still in the air, then we would hope to have a BJ or LJ who had their wits about them and could bag the spot where the ball was when the whistle blew.

The final piece to your argument is in Rule 4-2-

Art. 3 … An inadvertent whistle ends the down. Inadvertent whistles are administered as follows:

D. The penalty shall be administered as determined by the basic spot and take precedence over inadvertent whistle administration if, during the down a live-ball foul occurs prior to the inadvertent whistle and the penalty is accepted.

If a kick ends without player possession beyond the LOS, R fouls beyond the NZ before the kick ended – would that qualify as PSK? Since the penalty takes precedence over the inadvertent whistle – better get a bean bag on the field, sounds like PSK to me.

Bob M. - At least until they change the case play again:)

REPLY: Yes...if all of the PSK criteria are met (just like any other scrimmage kick). My only problem is with the last criteria: Without the foul, who would next be entitled to put the ball in play? To me, that doesn't appear to be satisfied.

I decided not to post on Friday when it would have been about the 4th post in this thread as I wondered if some rule had changed but I had forgotten it.

An IW during a scrimmage kick where there is a foul by R that would usually qualify as a PSK foul is the absolute worst time for the IW. The kick did not end. We don't have a PSK spot. We have an IW spot. We must enforce the foul as a loose-ball play and go to the previous spot. K has a very good chance of making the first down and keeping the ball all due to the fact that we screwed up.

Only bad things happen with IWs and even this foul can't save us. If fact it makes things twice as bad.

I agree, the absolute worst time possible time for an IW. But the fact is the kick did end with the IW and more than likely the PSK spot is the same as the IW. It will not be the easiest or most accurate spot granted – but an enforcement spot.

The problem with previous spot is K holds all the cards and will very likely be awarded a first down through an official’s mistake when their intent was to give up the ball. They may still accept the penalty, they just are not as significantly reward as under the old interpretation. If they do not like the out come of the enforcement they can decline the penalty and replay the down under the IW provision.

IMHO the verbiage was always there to come to this conclusion and has been wrong since PSK was added to NF rules.

The PSK criterion that states "K is not next to put the ball in play" was surely included to capture those occasions where there was a change of possession after the kick. It's pretty safe to assume it was not intended to cover this scenario.

I agree that by letter of the rule, we go back to the previous spot and enforce from there. But this is in no way consistent with the spirit of the rule, or the virtue of fair play.

Let common sense apply. (In soccer, we called this Law 18. Maybe we can call it Rule 11.) If the penalty is accepted, penalize from the end of the kick, where the ball was when the whistle sounded. If declined, replay the down.