Psk

[goodnews]

Under the national federation rules if K1 the kicker is given a cheap shot personal foul after he punts, but [B]he is still behind the line of scrimage but before the kick is caught. Do you mark it off from the end of the kick and first down R or from the los and first K? I think it is from the los and K keeps the ball what is your input?

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by goodnews

Under the national federation rules if K1 the kicker is given a cheap shot personal foul after he punts, but [b]he is still behind the line of scrimage but before the kick is caught. Do you mark it off from the end of the kick and first down R or from the los and first K? I think it is from the los and K keeps the ball what is your input?

One of the requirements for PSK is that the foul occurs beyond the expanded neutral zone. The kick hasn't ended so this is a loose ball play. The penalty is enforced from the previous spot.

[DesertZebra]

Walt's got it nailed. There are several requirements needed before a foul is considered a PSK, including where the foul takes place. Give that rule an extra look, and know it inside and out, it can save you on the field.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by goodnews

K1 the kicker is given a cheap shot personal foul after he punts, but he is still behind the line of scrimage but before the kick is caught. Do you mark it off from the end of the kick and first down R or from the los and first K? I think it is from the los and K keeps the ball what is your input?

CANADIAN RULING:

Unnecessary Roughness against the kicker with the ball in the air is applied from PLS, PP, or PBD, at K's option. If the kicker is no longer a kicker, then the options change to PP or PBD.

[kdf5]

I'm going to split hairs and say that you need to know when he stops being a kicker. A player is a kicker until "he has had reasonable opportunity to regain his balance". If he gets a cheap shot, was it before or after he regained his balance? This determines if you have RTK or just a PF and whether you award an automatic first down or not. The foul is, as Walt points out, from the previous spot.

[wwcfoa43]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

CANADIAN RULING:

Unnecessary Roughness against the kicker with the ball in the air is applied from PLS, PP, or PBD, at K's option.

On the Canadian Ruking, this depends on whether the kicker is still in the act of kicking. If the kicker's foot has returned to the ground then roughing the kicker can no longer apply.

So we are left with interference on the kicker or UR on the kicker (post kick). The former would be applied at PP while the later would be PP or PBD. Neither would be PLS though.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

On the Canadian Ruking, this depends on whether the kicker is still in the act of kicking. If the kicker's foot has returned to the ground then roughing the kicker can no longer apply.

When I read the OP, I thought I saw the word "just". But I see that it is not there on re-read. My bad.

Originally Posted by wwcfoa43

So we are left with interference on the kicker or UR on the kicker (post kick). The former would be applied at PP while the later would be PP or PBD. Neither would be PLS though.

These are correct.

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by kdf5

I'm going to split hairs and say that you need to know when he stops being a kicker. A player is a kicker until "he has had reasonable opportunity to regain his balance". If he gets a cheap shot, was it before or after he regained his balance? This determines if you have RTK or just a PF and whether you award an automatic first down or not. The foul is, as Walt points out, from the previous spot.

Exactly.The OP described the action as a 'cheap shot personal foul' so that's how I interpreted it, not RFK. The only difference is an award of an automatic first down. In either case you're enforcing from the previous spot.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

I'm going to split hairs and say that you need to know when he stops being a kicker. A player is a kicker until "he has had reasonable opportunity to regain his balance". If he gets a cheap shot, was it before or after he regained his balance? This determines if you have RTK or just a PF and whether you award an automatic first down or not. The foul is, as Walt points out, from the previous spot.

Technically, and that would be very technically, you are correct. However, unless someone who has committed a "cheap shot" against an opponent who has kicked a ball, CLEARLY has done so LONG after the process of kicking has ended, doesn't seem a prudent time to split hairs about which foul was technically delivered.

RTK, the more serious infraction, seems the appropriate choice.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

Technically, and that would be very technically, you are correct. However, unless someone who has committed a "cheap shot" against an opponent who has kicked a ball, CLEARLY has done so LONG after the process of kicking has ended, doesn't seem a prudent time to split hairs about which foul was technically delivered.

RTK, the more serious infraction, seems the appropriate choice.

I don't necessarily agree or disagree but how about this one: A's QB delivers a pass and is immediately and flagrantly hit in the head by B1's forearm. RTP or PF?

[jaybird]

Originally Posted by kdf5

I don't necessarily agree or disagree but how about this one: A's QB delivers a pass and is immediately and flagrantly hit in the head by B1's forearm. RTP or PF?

RTP and, if flagrant, DQ.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

I don't necessarily agree or disagree but how about this one: A's QB delivers a pass and is immediately and flagrantly hit in the head by B1's forearm. RTP or PF?

The same logic would apply, unless the contact was well after the act of passing had been completed, I would consider the foul, Roughing the Passer, which provides the added penalty of an automatic First Down as well as possible enforcement from the end of the last run, when the pass is complete.

[kdf5]

Originally Posted by ajmc

The same logic would apply, unless the contact was well after the act of passing had been completed, I would consider the foul, Roughing the Passer, which provides the added penalty of an automatic First Down as well as possible enforcement from the end of the last run, when the pass is complete.

But by definition, RTP is "charging into a passer....after it is clear the ball has been thrown". So how can you call an immediate cheap shot roughing?

[With_Two_Flakes]

Originally Posted by kdf5

But by definition, RTP is "charging into a passer....after it is clear the ball has been thrown". So how can you call an immediate cheap shot roughing?

A passer in the act of passing, or having just passed is a defenceless player.

The NCAA Rules Committee in NCAA want passers to be protected, hence they wish anything cheap to be classed as RTP so that the harsher RTP enforcement (tacking the 15 onto the end of the gain of the pass is completed) might act as a deterrent.
Every clinic I have attended in the last few years has emphasised that White Hats should be especially vigilant for hits to the QB's head or hits using the helmet and call them RTP.

The RTP Rule wording differences between NCAA (who use "obvious the ball has been thrown") and Fed (who use "clear the all has been thrown") are very minor.
I only work Federation occasionally when on vacation in the US, but I can imagine their Rules Comittee would have a very similar philosophy (if not stricter and more protective) to the NCAA regarding how it should be called.

[ajmc]

Originally Posted by kdf5

But by definition, RTP is "charging into a passer....after it is clear the ball has been thrown". So how can you call an immediate cheap shot roughing?

I Have no idea where you're trying to go with this. A better question might be, "How could you call an "immediate cheap shot" to anyone who is anywhere near involved in the process of passing, anything but roughing?"

The NF rules of the game identify a whole series of actions that are prohibited under Illegal Personal Contact (NF: 9.4), and then go on to add a unique penalty that applies to such contact when it is directed to a passer, ostensibly because of the added vulnerability of a player involved in the act of passing, and immediately thereafter. This appears to be an added prohibition deliberately limited to apply to a specific situation and intended to provide a specific deterent.