Case Book Question

[GPC2]

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?

[OverAndBack]

Originally Posted by GPC2

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.

[Theisey]

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.

[GPC2]

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?

[Theisey]

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.

[youngump]

Originally Posted by Theisey

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

[mbyron]

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

[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.

[OverAndBack]

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.