So what if the play continues? R still has the right to put the ball into play at the spot of first touching, even if they subsequently possess the ball and fumble it. The only time R gives up this right is a) if R commits a penalty after touching the ball or b) any live ball penalty is accepted.

Do we all agree that in the OP, if R did not foul, R could take the ball at the spot of first touching from Rule 6-2-5?

I think the confusion is the 'live ball penalty accepted' part, is that right? You are wanting to say the holding by R negates the first touching, which then makes 'K the next to put the ball in play' which negates the requirements for a PSK foul. I believe that is the confusion, which is why I put in the second example.

If you follow this logic in the second 'garden variety' example, you would say that we are accepting the foul, negating K's first touching. K has possession of the ball so we don't have a PSK foul. This is absurd. The real answer is that R has the right to put the ball into play at the spot of first touching, so K will not be the next to put the ball into play. All of the criteria for a PSK foul is met, so the holding foul will be penalized using PSK foul enforcement. Now look at the OP. The same answer applies. Exact same answer.

My request is that instead of blowing off the alternate example by stating it is 'garden variety,' that you explain why the hold is enforced as PSK foul and USE THE SAME LOGIC to explain why the OP is not a PSK foul.

I believe that I've already done that. The difference between your garden variety PSK situation and the OP is the turnover. Your answer to the OP seems to ignore the turnover, which would explain why extending the logic from your situation to the OP is incorrect.

I think that the confusion comes from how you're handling first touching. According to 2-16-6, "Game situations which produce results somewhat similar to penalties, but which are not classified as fouls are: disqualification of a player, first touching of a kick by K and forfeiture of a game."

The way that you're treating first touching, it seems to negate the turnover. That would make the case easy, because then all of the PSK criteria apply to the foul by R.

Others seem to think that the negating goes the other way: by turning the ball over, the first touching is negated. Can you cite a rule or case to justify your ruling? For my part, I'm not sure how to square 5-1-3 f & g.

6-1-6 and 6-2-5 are the rules I would cite (they are long).

Case 6.2.5A K1 attempts to down a punt beyond the neutral zone, but his touching only slows it down. The bouncing ball is subsequently recovered by R1 who advances 25 yards but then fumbles and K2 recovers. K2 is immediately tackled. Ruling: R may take the results of the play or retain possession by taking the ball at the spot of first touching. R can exercise this option, unless after R1 touches the ball, R commits a foul or the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down.

Reading Redding's Guide to NFHS Football by George Demetriou on pg 59: 'Team K may not keep possession, even if it recovers a muff or a fumble, as this is the price for having touched the ball too soon.'

So, if during a kick we have first touching by K, recovery by R, fumble by R, recovery by K, then R can take the ball at first touching as long as R does not commit a foul after they legally touch (i.e. not forced touching) the kick. This is supported by the Case book and Redding's guide.

But if K accepts the penalty, the first touch goes away per your own rule cite. There is now an accepted penalty for a foul during the down.
I have yet to see anyone cite a casebook or Reddings example that talks about a kick, R-foul, K-touch, R-fumble, K-in possession at the end play.

What none of the cases that you provide as examples have is a foul by R during the kick. Without the foul the examples are correct. But with the foul as stated in the OP, if K accepts the penalty for the hold the first touching by K is ignored per rule 6-2-5. Without first touching, K is the next to snap the ball, therefore no PSK enforcement. Since the foul is a loose ball foul the enforcement spot is the previous spot. The result is K’s ball 1-10 at K’s 40.

If K declines the penalty it is R’s ball at the spot of first touching.

Lesson for R is if you commit a foul during a scrimmage kick don’t lose possession of the ball.

You're right. I was misreading the "unless" clause in 5-1-3f: it fails to specify that the condition is R committing a post-possession foul.

Since first touching by K gives R a (nearly irrevocable) right to the ball, the pre-possession foul by R in the OP will be PSK.

Thanks for helping to sort this out.

I don't think that's correct. Here's the relevant sentence:

"The right of R to take the ball at spot of first
touching by K is canceled if R touches the kick and thereafter during the down
commits a foul or if the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down."

What exactly is canceled: the right of R to the ball, or the right of R to take the ball at the spot of first touching? I would argue that it's the latter: a PSK penalty will be marched off from the spot of first touching, and R keeps the ball.

Why would a PSK foul be marched off from the spot of first touching? That is not necessarily either the spot of the foul or the end of the kick. And does this interp also mean a foul by K will be enforced from the first touch spot as well? I'm confused.

Here's the way I read the rule:
The right of R to take the ball at spot of 1st touch is cancelled if:
1) R touches the kick and thereafter during the down commits a foul or
2) the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down.

The best way the I can put it is anytime a foul (is accepted) it trumps a first touching.

Which is supported by the 2008 Football Fundamentals (don't have my 2009 books here).

IV. Kicks - General

7. First touching of a kick by K is always ignored if the penalty is accepted for a foul during the down.

Good point. That's not what I meant: a PSK foul, if accepted, will prevent R from putting the ball in play at the spot of first touching. That means they will not have the right to put the ball in play from there.

Once K is guilty of first touching, R will put the ball in play next no matter what happens during the return (muff, fumble, etc.). That's pretty straightforward.

Not true. If R fouls after the touch or if there is an accepted penalty for a foul during the down, the touch goes away. You can't enforce the touch, and then proceed to something that would make the touch go away. In the OP, K accepting the penalty for R's foul makes the touch go away. You now have K next to put the ball in play due to the fumble recovery, so PSK goes away. So, in the end you have a previous spot enforcement. Of course K could decline the penalty and give the ball to R at the spot of first touching, but why would they?

Guys,

This play has been around for a couple of years. The confusion is a consequence of a rule change. Compare the 2008 and 2007 rule books. In 2007, PSK also included the provision that if K was in possession at the end of the down, it was not PSK. That disappeared in 2008. So in 2007, this play is clearly not PSK because K is in possession at the end of the down. That's the way the PSK rule was intended. So why did this disppear in 2008?

Consider:

4th and 5 at the 50. K1's kick hits at the 20 where it is touched by K2. It bounces back to the 22 where K3 downs it. During the kick R1 held K4 at the 40. PSK, right? Mark it off from the end of the kick, which is the 22.

But under the 2007 rule, if K is in possession of the ball at the end of the down, it's not PSK. Since K3 had to possess the ball for the kick to become dead, by rule K was in possession at the end of the down! It would be previous spot and 1st down for K! That's clearly not what was intended by the PSK rule. So it came out. But the intent that the play we're discussing not be PSK remained. They assumed the new language covered that.

It depends on what you mean by "makes the touch go away." As a spot for the next play and an option for R, it does go away, that's true.

But it does not go away for determining who will next put the ball in play. Hence the comment already quoted from Reddings: "Redding's Guide to NFHS Football by George Demetriou on pg 59: 'Team K may not keep possession, even if it recovers a muff or a fumble, as this is the price for having touched the ball too soon.'"

A post-possession foul by R means that they do not have the option of taking the ball at the spot of first touching. But first touching will still prevent K from getting possession during the down.

And that means that a pre-possession foul during this play is PSK.

But that interp says NOTHING about an accepted foul that both the rules and the fundamentals say makes the touch go away! K will be next to put the ball in play because they've recovered the fumble. You can't say they won't because of the touch and then make the touch go away because of the foul. That is a completely illogical way to order how you are going to resolve the situation.