PSK and Double Fouls

[Smiley]

4th and 10 for Team K from K's 35. At the snap, K2 is illegally in motion. K1 kicks the ball to R1, who returns the ball 10 yards and is downed. During the kick and after the ball is clearly beyond the expanded neutral zone, R2 illegally holds K3 at R's 45. Ruling?

[James Neil]

Originally posted by Smiley
4th and 10 for Team K from K's 35. At the snap, K2 is illegally in motion. K1 kicks the ball to R1, who returns the ball 10 yards and is downed. During the kick and after the ball is clearly beyond the expanded neutral zone, R2 illegally holds K3 at R's 45. Ruling?

I believe R is going to be given the opportunity of declining K’s foul and having theirs enforced under PSK guidelines. If R chooses to do this I need to know where the kick ended to give the final spot. R 1/10 @? , Clock on the snap.

[Theisey]

Last season, this was a re-kick situation.

This year, team-R has the option to decline team-Ks foul and accept PSK enforcement of their foul.

They can of course choose to accept team-Ks foul and as a result, there will be a replay of the down.

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by James Neil

I believe R is going to be given the opportunity of declining K’s foul and having theirs enforced under PSK guidelines. If R chooses to do this I need to know where the kick ended to give the final spot. R 1/10 @? , Clock on the snap.

This is an especially good question. This would be a double foul in 2002.

My suspicion is in 2003 it is a double foul under 5-2-2 because according to the rules and even a conversation with Jerry Diehl a double foul and possession do not change with post-scrimmage kick fouls. Since both fouls occurred before change of possession, it is back to the previous spot, 4th and 10.

[jfurdell]

Originally posted by Ed Hickland
My suspicion is in 2003 it is a double foul under 5-2-2 because according to the rules and even a conversation with Jerry Diehl a double foul and possession do not change with post-scrimmage kick fouls. Since both fouls occurred before change of possession, it is back to the previous spot, 4th and 10. [/B]

This is one of those contradictions that needs to be addressed (http://mysite.verizon.net/~jfurdell/):

A statement in the comments that the receiving team must have "clean hands" until a scrimmage kick crosses the expanded neutral zone implies that team possession changes when the kick crosses the expanded neutral zone. This implication is backed up by Football Fundamental I-3 (page 66), which states "A loose ball is in possession of the team whose player was last in possession unless post-scrimmage kick applies."

However, such a change in team possession is not explicity stated in the rules (Rule 2-32-2 defines team possession).

[Ed Hickland]

Originally posted by jfurdell

This is one of those contradictions that needs to be addressed (http://mysite.verizon.net/~jfurdell/):

A statement in the comments that the receiving team must have "clean hands" until a scrimmage kick crosses the expanded neutral zone implies that team possession changes when the kick crosses the expanded neutral zone. This implication is backed up by Football Fundamental I-3 (page 66), which states "A loose ball is in possession of the team whose player was last in possession unless post-scrimmage kick applies."

However, such a change in team possession is not explicity stated in the rules (Rule 2-32-2 defines team possession). [/B]

That was my initial question, when does possession change. The answer was the there has been no change of the time when possession changes. If you read the Case Book it implies possession changes when a player takes possession (both team and player) and delinates fouls by R after that possession change as post-possession fouls. But Fundamental I-3 adds a caveat to possession of a loose ball "unless post-scrimmage kick applies." That sounds as if team possession should change on crossing the ENZ.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: I think the Fed missed 10-2-1 and 10-2-2 when trying to integrate PSK into their current rules. What Jimmy offered a few posts up is the only thing that makes sense. R should be allowed to keep the ball if their foul is subject to PSK enforcement. FYI...the equivalent NCAA rule (10-1-4 Exception #2) says: "When Team B's foul calls for post scrimmage kick enforcement, Team B may decline offsetting fouls and accept post scrimmage kick enforcement."

[Smiley]

I guess that makes sense. Maybe next year, they'll put it into the rules, instead of a comment. It does seem a little inconsistent, though. What if, in my example, R1 muffs the kick, which then rolls to the goal line, and K3 is in position to recover, but R2 holds him and R3 recovers? Under your interpretation and the comment on the rules revision, R still gets to keep the ball since they got it with "clean hands". They have met all the criteria for PSK. What about the inadvertent whistle rule during a kick. Does R get to keep it? I think not.

[Theisey]

Originally posted by Smiley
I guess that makes sense. Maybe next year, they'll put it into the rules, instead of a comment. It does seem a little inconsistent, though. What if, in my example, R1 muffs the kick, which then rolls to the goal line, and K3 is in position to recover, but R2 holds him and R3 recovers? Under your interpretation and the comment on the rules revision, R still gets to keep the ball since they got it with "clean hands". They have met all the criteria for PSK. What about the inadvertent whistle rule during a kick. Does R get to keep it? I think not.

### If the NFHS interpretation really is or will be that possession changes once a kicked ball crosses the expanded NZ, then surprise surprise if there happens to be an IW while the ball is loose.

Lets go back to 2002 rules, if team-R fouled 20 yards downfield during the kick play and the ball is loose when an IW is blown.. Then, Team-K should be given the option to accept the team-R foul from the previous spot and either replay the down or it might be 1st and 10.
Do you all agree?
Well, lets move to 2003 rules, same play. Who's in possession after the IW? Well, with this not so well thought out interperpretation, it's Team-R. Not only that, all the remaining factors for PSK have now been meet.
Team-R should ne able to keep the ball and have their foul marched off from the basic spot.

This is not what is intended for PSK and not what would be done under NCAA rules. Team-B would never keep the ball, but their foul would be enforced at the previous spot.

This is why (I feel) this notion that possession is to be considered changed as soon as the ball crosses the ENZ during a kick is nonsense.

[Smiley]

The book never says that possession is considered changed when the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone. The only reference to a change in the "clean hands" policy is in the comment on the rules revisions. It doesn't say anything about any change with regards to the inadvertent whistle, so this is still subject to interpretation. There are arguments both ways. The rule says that the basic spot is the PSK spot when among other criteria, K is not in possession at the end of the down. So, who is in possession when there is an inadvertent whistle? Since the definition of possession hasn't changed, I say K is in possession. Therefore, there is no change in the ruling. Previous spot enforcement.

[Theisey]

And that's the way it should be Smiley. Team-K is still in possession if there happens to be an IW while the ball is still loose.
Its posted in several of the online forums that some areas are telling or will be telling their officals to consider possession has changed once the ball is beyond the ENZ.
That just one of several areas that is wrong as it does not fit the definitions. I'll not have the books until mid-August, so I'm hoping that there will be some published intrepretations or errata will clean up this mess.