Kick play

[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.

[whitehat52]

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.

I was not making up rules, in fact I am enforcing a rule you are choosing to ignore.

ART. 5 . . . When any K player touches a scrimmage kick beyond the expanded
neutral zone to R’s goal line before it is touched beyond the neutral zone by R
and before the ball has come to rest, it is referred to as “first touching of the kick”
and the place is the “spot of first touching.” Such touching is ignored if it is
caused by R pushing or blocking K into contact with the ball.

If any K player touches a scrimmage kick in this manner, R may take the ball at the spot of first touching, or any spot if there is more than one spot of first
touching, or they may choose to have the ball put in play as determined by the
action which follows first touching. 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.

Be that as it may you missed my point entirely. I will not change your mind and you are not going to change mine. If we get this submitted to NFHS and they issue a ruling, all of the debate will be ended. The federation will tell us how they want this called, it will be our job to enforce this with their directive in mind.

[ppaltice]

After reading Mike L's posts and others, I can say that I am not firmly convinced either way. I do not think the NFHS rules clearly define how first touching violations (5-1-3g and 6-2-5) interact with PSK provisions, namely 2-16-2h5.

I asked George Demetriou and he also is not convinced. When I hear something more, I will reply.