Need a little help....Interesting play

[DrMooreReferee]

K's ball 4th and 10 at K's 30. K punts the ball and they only had 6 men on the line of scrimmage, illegal formation. The ball travels downfield to R's 20 where its caught bt R30. During the kick, R55 holds K10 at R's 40. R 30 runs the ball back to midfield. During his runback, R72 blocks K17 in the back at R's 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'm going to go ahead and cut to the chase here. First time I saw this play I said that R would need to decline the foul against K, and that then K would get a choice of whether to take the PSK foul (better deal) or to take the block in the back foul which was not a PSK foul. But that, of course, they couldn't have both of them. But then I did a little bit of reading.

Would someone who is really smart please look at rule 10-2-1 and then look at 10-2-3. And please tell me why I'm going crazy over this. I now sorta feel like the play I described above is just a DOUBLE FOUL, plain and simple. No options for anybody, just a double foul. When you read 10-2-1, it says ALL fouls committed by R are PSK fouls.... In the above example, both fouls are not PSK fouls, and I'm thinking that fact makes this a double foul with no options for either team.

Just so you know, there is a play in the reddings guide just like this. Its on page 173 play#30. And reddings does not say that its a double foul. But here's a news flash for everyone. Reddings is not ALWAYS correct. I've seen a few plays in that book that are just plain WRONG. But still, I'd love to hear some good intelligent conversation about why this is not a double foul.

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

K's ball 4th and 10 at K's 30. K punts the ball and they only had 6 men on the line of scrimmage, illegal formation. The ball travels downfield to R's 20 where its caught bt R30. During the kick, R55 holds K10 at R's 40. R 30 runs the ball back to midfield. During his runback, R72 blocks K17 in the back at R's 40.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I'm going to go ahead and cut to the chase here. First time I saw this play I said that R would need to decline the foul against K, and that then K would get a choice of whether to take the PSK foul (better deal) or to take the block in the back foul which was not a PSK foul. But that, of course, they couldn't have both of them. But then I did a little bit of reading.

Would someone who is really smart please look at rule 10-2-1 and then look at 10-2-3. And please tell me why I'm going crazy over this. I now sorta feel like the play I described above is just a DOUBLE FOUL, plain and simple. No options for anybody, just a double foul. When you read 10-2-1, it says ALL fouls committed by R are PSK fouls.... In the above example, both fouls are not PSK fouls, and I'm thinking that fact makes this a double foul with no options for either team.

Just so you know, there is a play in the reddings guide just like this. Its on page 173 play#30. And reddings does not say that its a double foul. But here's a news flash for everyone. Reddings is not ALWAYS correct. I've seen a few plays in that book that are just plain WRONG. But still, I'd love to hear some good intelligent conversation about why this is not a double foul.

One sure could read the rule that way. I may get crucified for this but MY common sense says that they didn't mean all fouls must meet the criteria for PSK fouls; rather, the fouls must all occur during or after the kick.

If either foul had occured on it's own, R would have kept the ball after enforcement by declining K's foul. just because it is a multiple foul situation shouldn't negate that.

[kfo9494]

By chance we went over this the other day in our regular meeting. Not the exact play but PSK fouls.
>
If K fouls during the loose ball play(scrimmage kick), and R foul(s) and the foul(s) meet the situation for PSK or if R fouls during the run. R can keep the ball by declining K foul.
As stated above this is a multiple foul and K gets the choice.
>
>
But here is something that I was going to bring up next week. I think I know the answer but just need to confirm-
During a scrimmage kick R fouls which is PSK and the ball hits the ground and rolls. As the ball is rolling K commits a personal foul. Even though R fouled first they can still keep the ball by declining K's foul. Am I correct or will I make a fool of myself?

[mikesears]

Originally Posted by kfo9494

By chance we went over this the other day in our regular meeting. Not the exact play but PSK fouls.
>
If K fouls during the loose ball play(scrimmage kick), and R foul(s) and the foul(s) meet the situation for PSK or if R fouls during the run. R can keep the ball by declining K foul.
As stated above this is a multiple foul and K gets the choice.
>
>
But here is something that I was going to bring up next week. I think I know the answer but just need to confirm-
During a scrimmage kick R fouls which is PSK and the ball hits the ground and rolls. As the ball is rolling K commits a personal foul. Even though R fouled first they can still keep the ball by declining K's foul. Am I correct or will I make a fool of myself?

Yes you are correct.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by DrMooreReferee

Would someone who is really smart please look at rule 10-2-1 and then look at 10-2-3. And please tell me why I'm going crazy over this. I now sorta feel like the play I described above is just a DOUBLE FOUL, plain and simple. No options for anybody, just a double foul. When you read 10-2-1, it says ALL fouls committed by R are PSK fouls.... In the above example, both fouls are not PSK fouls, and I'm thinking that fact makes this a double foul with no options for either team.

I think that you're misreading 10-2-1. Here's the rule:

Originally Posted by 2009 Football Rule Book

It is a double foul if both teams commit fouls, other than unsportsmanlike
or nonplayer, during the same live-ball period in which:
a. There is no change of team possession, unless all fouls committed by R are
post-scrimmage kick fouls, or
b. There is a change of team possession, and the team in possession at the
end of the down fouls prior to final change of possession unless all fouls
committed by R are post-scrimmage kick fouls, or
c. There is a change of possession and the team in final possession accepts
the penalty for its opponent’s foul at any time during the down.
In (a), (b) or (c), the penalties cancel and the down is replayed.

Here's the general principle: for a down where there's a COP, it's a DF if the team that ends up with the ball committed its foul(s) before gaining possession. See 10.2.1 A and B.

Now here's the exception: if the team that ends up with the ball fouls before gaining possession AND all of the pre-possession fouls are PSK fouls, then it's not necessarily a DF. R can keep the ball in this case by declining the penalty on K. That's the force of the PSK exception. See 10.2.1 C.

For your OP, this would be a DF only if R accepts the penalty for K's foul. It would then meet the criteria given in clause (c). R can keep the ball by declining the penalty on K. K then has a choice of which R foul to penalize.

The exception applies here because all of R's pre-possession fouls are PSK fouls. R also committed a post-possession foul, but that's irrelevant to the DF principle stated above.

You were correct that we cannot penalize both live-ball fouls by R, since they occurred during the same down (though one was PSK and one was post-possession).

[DrMooreReferee]

what if we changed things up just a tad.

K's ball 4th and 5 at their own 40. K only has 6 men on the line and they punt the ball to R33, who catches the ball at his own 30. R72 holds K50 at the line of scrimmage. And then R17 blocks K10 in the back at midfield while the ball was in flight. R33 returned the ball to K's 20 and was tackled inbounds.

So, here we again have one foul on K and 2 on R. One of them is a PSK foul and the other is not. Is this a double foul?

If it is, explain to me the difference.

[ppaltice]

R holding on the line is not a PSK foul, it is a loose ball foul. Here we have a double foul and we must replay the down.

See 2-16-2h3. For PSK, the foul must be beyone the NZ expanded.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by ppaltice

R holding on the line is not a PSK foul, it is a loose ball foul. Here we have a double foul and we must replay the down.

See 2-16-2h3. For PSK, the foul must be beyond the NZ expanded.

That's right. In the new play R has committed a pre-possession foul that is not a PSK foul. Therefore, that foul does not qualify for the PSK exception. The general rule for DFs applies, so it's a double foul, replay the down.