Kick play

[Mike L]

And what does the first touch rule do but allow R to take the ball at that spot? Nothing, despite your efforts to make it more than it is.

"R may take the ball at the spot of first touching or they may choose to have the ball put in play as determined by the action which follows first touching".

That's it. They lose the rights to first touch because of the accepted penalty, per rule per fundamental. The action that follows is K recovering R's fumble, which also goes away because of the accepted penalty. PSK is not an option because condition 5 for PSK is not met. Leaving us, yet again, with previous spot enforcement. This idea that the first touch somehow trumps everything else that may happen during the down and guarantees R the ball has no support within the rule(s) or the fundamentals.

But really, I'm tired of arguing it. Rule it anyway you wish if it ever happens, no skin off my back.

[Reffing Rev.]

One things I've learned from reading this board...we apparently want to penalize kids for turnovers.

Aside from what the coach may do to the kid on the sideline there is no penalty for turning the ball over, and I reject any theory/philopophy that wants to impose one. They guy who said something like that if they wanted to take PSK enforcement they shouldn't have fumbled should get on the microphone and say, "We have an unfortunate fumble (S26) by the receiving team, the penalty is 40 yards from the end of the play, automatic first down for the kicking team." Because that is what that "logic" gets you.

[UpNorthRef]

They are being penalized for holding not for fumbling. R committed a foul that because of their fumble is no longer PSK. Two errors by R on the play does not make the ruling of a loose ball enforcement illogical. It is penalizing them for holding while making them responsible for the action created by their fumble. K did not violate any rules on the play and recovered a fumble by R, who in addition to fumbling away the ball also committed a penalty. "Logic" says R should not end up with the ball.

[Reffing Rev.]

Originally Posted by UpNorthRef

K did not violate any rules on the play and recovered a fumble by R, who in addition to fumbling away the ball also committed a penalty. "Logic" says R should not end up with the ball.

Ummm...First Touching of a Kick by K beyond the NZ is in effect a violation. K may not have committed a foul, but they did violate a rule.

The problem with this entire thread, is unfortunately there is no concrete solution. We can argue until we are blue in the face about the weight of PSK vs. 1st Touching, and we can keep talking past each other.

If this happens tonight (if it does, you bet I'm posting about it) my interpretation/explanation will be that K's first touching means they cannot be next to put the ball into play. That is after all the intent of the First Touching Rule. The foul then is a PSK foul. The fact that R fouled means they cannot take the ball at the spot of first touching, but it does not mean K is excused from first touching. If R's foul was not otherwise a PSK foul, for instance Roughing, or post-possession then K could keep the ball without the foul, so they can keep the ball with the foul. That's my story and I'm sticking to it.

[Robert Goodman]

Reffing Rev's reasoning makes the most sense to me. That is, unless you go by the logic of the infield fly rule -- runners advance at their own risk.

If I had my druthers, if there's a spot of first touching that R could accept, that would establish an enforcement spot and right to possession that couldn't be erased unless & until R possessed the ball beyond it -- like "advantage gained" in rugby.

Robert

[whitehat52]

Why not have a state interpreter refer this play to the NFHS and have them make a determination. This will settle the argument once and for all. I am in the camp that believes this a previous spot enforcement.

The officials that believe this is still a PSK foul seem to be hanging their hat on the Redding ruling that isn't exactly on point. The Redding interpretation is ignoring a rule (2-16-2h-5) and a fundamental (IV Kicks-General 7). Redding even though very helpful is not an official ruling and cannot be taken as gospel.

Until we get a ruling from a person of authority, I can't ignore 2-26-2h-5 and the fundamental. Hopefully we can get this resolved before the season is too much older.

[mbyron]

Originally Posted by whitehat52

Why not have a state interpreter refer this play to the NFHS and have them make a determination. This will settle the argument once and for all. I am in the camp that believes this a previous spot enforcement.

The officials that believe this is still a PSK foul seem to be hanging their hat on the Redding ruling that isn't exactly on point. The Redding interpretation is ignoring a rule (2-16-2h-5) and a fundamental (IV Kicks-General 7). Redding even though very helpful is not an official ruling and cannot be taken as gospel.

Until we get a ruling from a person of authority, I can't ignore 2-16-2h-5 and the fundamental. Hopefully we can get this resolved before the season is too much older.

By invoking the provision of PSK about whether K will be next to put the ball in play, you're assuming that they will. That's the focus of the discussion: you can't just assume you're right.

The Reddings ruling neither ignores the rule nor the fundamental. Interpreted properly, the rule and fundamental both support the idea that K cannot put the ball in play after they commit first touching.

You've also ignored the point buried in my long post: first touching is just like a foul committed by the team not in possession. Once it happens, that team cannot be next to put the ball in play.

To treat this as "previous spot enforcement" is to use first touching to offset the hold. There is absolutely no provision in the rules to offset first touching. It is inadvisable to make up rules.

[mbyron]

OK, I think I've found a way to explain this situation. Start with "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." First touching produces "results somewhat similar to penalties," so how exactly is first touching similar?

Now think of a completely different case. Ordinary running play: A33 runs up the middle, and during the run B55 holds.

Stop right there and notice something about the play: no matter what happens for the rest of the down, B will NOT be next to put the ball in play. Even if A fumbles and turns it over, the foul by B means that B is not entitled to possession on the next down.

So if A fumbles and B recovers, A will accept the penalty and replay the down. Now change the case a little: what if A fouls too? That would give us a double foul, the penalties offset, and we would replay the down. A retains possession no matter what, once B fouls.

First touching by K is similar to a foul by B in this respect. K has kicked the ball and thus turned over possession to R (that's the rationale behind PSK fouls). If there is first touching by K, then R retains possession no matter what else happens during the down. That's exactly what Reddings says, and it's just like penalties by the team without possession during a non-kicking down.

So what the heck is the rule saying? It's pointing out another similarity to penalties. Go back to B55's hold. The penalty for that entitles A to a choice: accept the yardage from the basic spot, or take the result of the play.

Will A always have that choice? No, they lose it if they foul. In that case, they lose the right to take the ball 10 yards from the basic spot.

First touching is exactly the same. After first touching by K, R has the right to take the ball at the spot of first touching or to take the result of the play.

Does R always have that choice? No, they lose that right if they foul after the kick (either PSK or post-possession). That's exactly like a double foul.

The main difference between first touching by K and a foul is that first touching never offsets, so we don't replay the down. Otherwise it functions like a penalty, and the rule about "ignoring" first touching concerns the choice by R to take the ball there. It does not imply that first touching goes away completely.

Sorry for the long post, but the rule makes sense and Reddings has the right interp of it.