Kick play
 

4th and 8 from K's 30. R33 holds K12 beyond the NZ during the kick. The kick is rolling and is first touched by K at the K 45. R44 picks up the ball and runs it back to the K20 where he fumbles and K recovers.

If K declines the penalty, R can take the result of the play or take the ball at the spot of first touching, correct?

If K accepts the penalty, that's where I'm a little more hazy. If it's accepted, R cannot take it at first touching and this would not be PSK enforcement since K is next to put the ball in play, correct? So it would be enforced from the previous spot and replay the down (if the penalty didn't make the line to gain)?

Thanks!

You're right that this isn't PSK. But why would R get the ball if K declines the penalty?

5-1-3: When a scrimmage down ends with the ball in the field of play or
out of bounds between the goal lines, a new series is awarded to:
d. The team in possession at the end of the down, if there is a change of team
possession during the down, unless the penalty is accepted for a non postscrimmage
kick foul which occurred before the change of possession.

bossman,

Right on both counts. It's not PSK, so if K accepts the penalty it's previous spot. If for some reason K declines the penalty, R will get the ball at the spot of first touching. This is unlikely, but could happen. Suppose it had been 4th and 12 and K rocketed a kick that was first touched at R's 20. K might decline the penalty because it wouldn't be a first down and let R have the ball at R's 20.

You have first touching, a PSK foul and K in possession at the end of the down. The only time first touching is cancelled is if R fouls after touching the ball or if any foul is accepted.

If K accepts the penalty, it will be 10 yards from either the end of the kick or the spot of the foul (using all but one).

If K declines the penalty, R will most certainly take the ball at the spot of first touching. (R could decline to take the ball at first touching too and it will be K's ball).

The key to remember for PSK (2-16-2h) is that it is not who is in possession at the end of the down, but whether K would be the next to put the ball in play. Since we have First Touching, that is not the case.

We can make the play simpler, keeping the same two elements that are confusing you:

4th and 8 from K's 30. R33 holds K12 beyond the NZ during the kick. K20 falls on the untouched kick at R15 yard line.

We still have First Touching, PSK and K in possession at the end of the down.

First touching is never a live-ball-penalty-enforcement spot. This holding foul is enforced from previous spot (loose-ball play). K did not obtain ball with clean hands, because of first-touching violation, and since K recovered fumble there is not PSK. Options are: Decline penalty and R gets ball at first-touching spot; accept penalty and K has 1/10 @ K40. So K will obviously accept penalty.

This is a PSK enforcement foul. It meets all of the criteria of 2-16-2h including part 5) and K will not be next to put the ball in play. And absolutely you must consider the first touching in determining if this is a PSK foul or not.

Again, think of this play first:

PLAY1: 4th and 8 from K's 30. R33 holds K12 beyond the NZ during the kick. K20 falls on the untouched kick at R15 yard line.

K has possession of the ball at the end of the down. But R will be the next to put the ball in play (because of the first touching by K). R33's hold will be enforced using PSK enforcement. The enforcement spot will be determined from the all but 1 between where the kick ended and the spot of the foul.

PLAY2: 4th and 8 from K's 30. R33 holds K12 beyond the NZ during the kick. K20 touches the ball on R15 yard line and the ball goes out of bounds.

Still PSK foul since R will be the next to put the ball in play. The enforcement spot will be the inbounds spot of where the ball went OOB (or the spot of the foul, depending on which is worse).

PLAY3: 4th and 8 from K's 30. R33 holds K12 beyond the NZ during the kick. R86 touches the ball on R15 yard line and K falls on the ball at R20 yard line.

This is not a PSK foul as K will be the next to put the ball into play. K has the option of accepting the penalty (10 yds from previous spot and replay down) or declining the penalty and taking the ball 1st and 10 at spot of recovery.

PLAY4 (Orig): 4th and 8 from K's 30. R33 holds K12 beyond the NZ during the kick. The kick is rolling and is first touched by K at the K 45. R44 picks up the ball and runs it back to the K20 where he fumbles and K recovers.

Like play1, R will be the next to team to put the ball into play due to first touching. So, this is a PSK foul. The enforcement spot is where R picked up the ball (end of kick) or spot of the hold, depending on which is worse.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

K won't decline R's foul because R will then accept K's foul, and keep the ball, thus negating K's recovery.

R33's hold - before the ball is punted, or after?

If before:
Holding on R, No Yards on K. Net is back 5 yards, repeat the down. K 4D/13 @ K-25.

If after:
Holding on R, No Yards on K. Net is up 5 yards, 1D for R. R 1D/10 @ K-40.

My schedule forces me to study NCAA rules more than NFHS, so I may be missing something because of the difference in PSK (compare NCAA 10-2-3-e to NFHS 2-16-2-h-5).

But the rules' clear language suggests that the flaw in Ppaltice's analysis is that K must accept the penalty to avoid R getting the ball at the first-touching spot. So when K accepts the penalty, R's right to take the ball at the first-touching spot is canceled:

"The right of R to take the ball at spot of first touching by K is canceled if . . . the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down." 6-2-5.

When the right to take the ball at the first-touching spot is canceled, K is the next to put the ball in play. Thus, no PSK enforcement.

There may exist an interpretation that mandates PSK in this instance, but I don't know of it.

This is not PSK
 

R is not in possession at the end of the down if the penalty is accepted so it cannot be PSK. The foul for R holding would be enforced from the previous spot as a loose ball foul. If the penalty is declined by K it will be R's ball at the spot of first touching. This is an interesting twist to see if there is a conflict between PSK and first touching.

This is how I interpreted it

What is your ruling on this:

PLAY1: 4th and 8 from K's 30. R33 holds K12 beyond the NZ during the kick. K20 falls on the untouched kick at R15 yard line.

Garden variety PSK and first touching. Half the distance from R15, 1/10 for R at R7.5, snap.

Why is this play instructive? The complication of the OP comes from the turnover.

Because in the OP with a turnover, you also have first touching. Why is one case of first touching "garden variety" and another ignored?

The play you post is the very definition of PSK - R's foul occurs after the snap, beyond the NZ, before the kick ends, and R will be the team to put the ball into play.

"Because in the OP with a turnover, you also have first touching. Why is one case of first touching "garden variety" and another ignored?"

Because the play is over when K secured possession of the kick in example 2. In the original play there was only first touching and the play continued.

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.

Again, I hate to keep harping on this, but I think you should understand a simpler play first. Here is the same play I referenced before:

PLAY1: 4th and 8 from K's 30. R33 holds K12 beyond the NZ during the kick. K20 falls on the untouched kick at R15 yard line.

In this play, R NEVER has possession of the ball. They never touch the ball. But the first touching rule allows R to put the ball in play next.

If you think the foul by R33 is a PSK foul, then it is because you acknowledge that first touching meets 2-16-2h5: 'And K will not be the next to put the ball in play.'

Yes, if we have an accepted foul, R cannot take the ball at the spot of first touching. They will get the ball at the spot from the enforcement of the PSK foul (either the end of the kick or the spot of the foul). And yes, the basic spot is the end of the kick, not the spot of first touching.

Now, if we accept that first touching meets 2-16-2h5, then the OP's question will also be a PSK foul and if accepted, will be enforced from the end of the kick or the spot of the foul.

What I hate to keep harping on is the rule and fundamental that says the first touching is ignored if there is an accepted foul during the down. If it's to be ignored, then none of the consequences of a first touch come into play. You can attempt to use whatever example you want to make it come back for some sort of enforcement, but ignored is pretty easy English to understand. So it now comes down to who would be next to put the ball in play. It's going to be K because of a fumble recovery. So you can't have PSK, condition 5 for PSK is not met. K must accept the penalty to make the touch go away. The PSK portion is gone. You are left with previous spot enforcement.

The rules 6-1-6 and 6-2-5 does not say 'first touching ignored' but rather 'the right of R to take the ball at the spot of first touching is cancelled...'

One more play (as I cannot find this exact play as the OP). I am not sure if you will accept it as it comes from Redding's Guide.

Chapt 6, Play 20. On a punt, the untouched ball is bouncing at Team R's five yard line when K26 legally bats the ball backwards into R32. While the ball is rolling loose, R65 clips at the 10 yard line. The ball is recovered by prone K10 at the two yard line. RULING: The forced touching is disregarded, thus Team R would next put the ball in play. Consequently, R65's foul has PSK enforcement. The penalty is enforced from the end of kick, Team R's two yard line. Team R loses the right to take the ball at the spot of first touching because the penalty is accepted. If Team K declines the penalty, Team R will choose the spot of first touching (Team R's 5 yard line) because R65's foul occurred before Team R (legally) touched the ball.

Sure I accept Reddings. Your problem remains your example does not reflect what happened in the OP. K is not the next to put the ball in play because the touching by R is ignored. Why are you willing to disregard a touch as specified under one rule but not under the other?

Not my sport, but I enjoy drifting over here to take in the fun and learn a bunch. But I think you're talking past each other and I think I know why so please forgive my intrusion.

The clarifying situation might be this:
K kicks to R's 10 yard line where K commits first touching. The ball then bounds toward the endzone. It is recovered by K (untouched by R) a) in the endzone or b) at the 1 yard line.

If I understand correctly, R has the option in a) to take the ball at the spot of first touching or the touchback. In b) they have the option to take the ball at the spot of first touching or the one yard line. In a they will choose the 20. In b) they will choose the 10.

This is because when K recovers a kick untouched by R the ball belongs to R. (This might occur simultaneously to first touching.)

If that's correct, then if we add a penalty for R committed during the kick we get these results.
In a) they must take the touchback, penalty from there. In b) they must take the ball at the 1 yard line, penalty from there.


Hopefully, even if I've gotten that completely wrong correcting me will be informative for all.
________
thai property in Pattaya

Set aside the "fundamental" and look at the rule. It says that R cannot take the ball at the spot of first touching if a penalty is taken. That does not mean that first touching is completely ignored. It's a point about where the ball will next be snapped, not about who will snap it.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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. :rolleyes:

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.

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.

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.