First touching/ IW
 

K is guilty of first touching of a kick. Thereafter during the kick, there is an IW. Does R retain the right of first touching spot, or is it automatic replay of the down since the IW occured during a legal kick?

Wow. This one has made me put my thinking cap on. But I'm going to say that since it is still a kick and therefore still a loose ball with an IW, you've gotta replay the down.

Hole in the rules: it's unclear whether IW trumps first touching or vice versa.

The case for going with the IW: the IW clearly happens during a loose ball, since the touching does not constitute possession. By rule, replay the down.

The case for going with first touching: 2-16-6 says:

"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."

So we treat first touching like an accepted penalty, specifically by disregarding the IW, and go with first touching.

Pick 'em.

Is this an accepted federation interpretation, or is this yours?

The times when we replay the down include any time where it's not clear who was disadvantaged by the IW - including most COP and loose ball plays. Given that on this play you do not know which team was disadvantaged by the early killing of the play, I'd go with replaying the down.

Just had a sub varsity game on Monday night and the wing guy opposite of me (4 man crew) had an IW during the onside kick attempt, here is the play.

K attempts an onside kick, the ball travels roughly 7 yards where R attempts to field the ball (which had been grounded). The ball bounces off of the R players knee and is laying loose on the field when the wing guy (who was obstructed by the scrum of players) blows the whistle assuming that R had successfully gained possossion of the ball. We had a rekick in this situation, which sucked because K recovered the original onside kick, down 6 with 1:30 left in the game.

I gave you two incompatible interps, one for going with the IW, one for going with first touching.

NFHS can be inconsistent, but they're not THAT bad!

As a general principle, that's pretty good. But in case of an accepted penalty, nobody's disadvantaged by the IW, which by your principle explains why we go with the penalty (so far so good!).

But if we treat first touching as akin to a penalty, that would still permit us to negate the IW, and for the same reason, right?

Good job replaying the down: clearly the correct call here.

You can console yourself with this thought: K did NOT recover the original onside kick. They merely helped you pick up a dead ball!

And I apologize for 3 posts in a row. :o

I could argue either side, but my gut instinct is that K screwed up & I'm not willing to let them off scot free.

I'd give R a choice -- take the ball at the FT spot, or rekick.

No, I don't think so.

With the penalty, everything that happens afterward ends up being disregarded anyway. (If the penalty is declined, you're back to replaying due to the IW)

With first touching, you have no idea whether the "zero yard penalty" will be accepted.

I suppose a "fair" way of navigating this would be to let the receiving team decide if they want to accept the first touching, or replay the down. I can see both sides of this.

Rule 4-2-3

The down shall be replayed if during the down or during a down in which the penalty for a foul is declined, an inadvertent whistle is sounded while a legal forward pass or snap is in flight or during a legal kick.

And all us law class students remember about the difference between may & shall.

However, the rule governing first touching specifically tells us under what circumstances R loses the right to take the ball at that spot. Neither of the reasons for them to lose that right is an IW.

So it appears we have two rules that are at odds with one another.

I smell developing consensus! :)

Somebody call NFHS...