2003 NF interp. #13

[Mike Simonds]

I'm confused. If all other NF PSK provisions apply, how come R cannot decline K's foul and retain possession after penalization of their foul?

Is there a difference between change of possession for PSK purposes (kick crosses the expanded neutral zone) and change of possession for double foul purposes (actual possession of the kick)?

Thanks.

[jfurdell]

Basically, the rules for team possession haven't changed. PSK just allows for special penalty enforcement in specific circumstances.

Since the fouls in interpretation #13 occur before the change in team possession (i.e. the team in final possession fouled before gaining possession), they are treated just like any other double foul.

[BktBallRef]

The play is still being debated by the NFHS.

[sm_bbcoach]

Originally posted by BktBallRef
The play is still being debated by the NFHS.

We were informed that it becomes a double foul as under previous rulings since the ball has yet to cross the ENZ. R has not be ginven the chance to decline it. NF WAS suspose to come out with a ruling for this at its interp mtg, but as I have found out thay have not. So, just treat it like you would have last year. The only change is the like a window opening and closing. It opens when the ball crosses the ENZ, and closes when possesion of the punt is made. Everything else is as it was.

[cowbyfan1]

besides the PSK is really just for R. So a foul by K is treated the same as last year. R may decline it or they may have K rekick after the distance is marked off from the previous spot (if the foul was during the kick).

We have also been told by our director of officials that basically if it is a clean snap to the punter, treat as a PSK from that point and to not try to pin-point if the ball is over the ENZ or not.. Obviously if he takes his time getting off the punt that could change, but in a "normal" situation, treat it as PSK from the punt.

[Tbone]

Case Book interpretation #9 and Interpretation #15 are the same play (except for pass and kick); howerver, the options for B are different. They are really making this much more difficult that it should be.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by Tbone
Case Book interpretation #9 and Interpretation #15 are the same play (except for pass and kick); howerver, the options for B are different. They are really making this much more difficult that it should be.

Yes, but they've acknowledged that with the note. "The Football Editorial Committee recognizes a conflict with Rule 10-5-3 and will address it at the next rules committee meeting." But you're correct that the two need to be the same.

[Bob M.]

To the original question about NFHS Interpretation #13: I've spoken with the interpreter from NH who attended the NFHS Interpreters' meeting last month. This play is no longer in question. The Rules Committe in Indianapolis made it very clear at the meeting that their intention was to leave NF 10-2-1 as it was. This is a double foul since R fouled prior to gaining possession.

This is a known and conscious difference between Federation rules and NCAA rules. In NCAA, R could decline the penalty for K's foul and keep the ball with PSK enforcement against them--but not in Federation.

And by the way, we all need to remove one misconception from our minds: Team possession does not change when the kick crosses the ENZ. Until R catches or recovers the kick, Team K is still in team possession of the ball.

[Theisey]

Originally posted by Bob M.
To the original question about NFHS Interpretation #13: I've spoken with the interpreter from NH who attended the NFHS Interpreters' meeting last month. This play is no longer in question. The Rules Committe in Indianapolis made it very clear at the meeting that their intention was to leave NF 10-2-1 as it was. This is a double foul since R fouled prior to gaining possession.

This is a known and conscious difference between Federation rules and NCAA rules. In NCAA, R could decline the penalty for K's foul and keep the ball with PSK enforcement against them--but not in Federation.

Lets hope they change it next year. Did you know that during the experimentation phase in KY, the written rule they had did allow for the penalty to be declined. What in the world did the NF feel was wrong with that. I don't want to hear they didn't want exceptions.

And by the way, we all need to remove one misconception from our minds: Team possession does not change when the kick crosses the ENZ. Until R catches or recovers the kick, Team K is still in team possession of the ball.

AMEN to that...

[Mike Simonds]

Yes, I agree with Tom that under the current set of NF rules as they are written now, K is still in team possession after their kick crosses the expanded neutral zone. Possession does not change until R catches or recovers the kick. Therefore, the double foul rules still apply all the way up to the time the kick ends. Therefore, under current NF rules, double foul means replay the down from the previous spot. No options.

However, we got word this week that Hawaii may be going to ignore #13 which means that team possession changes when the kick crosses the expanded neutral zone. R will have the option to decline K's foul.

Our state interpreter is coming over on Tuesday to give us the Part II exam... I will find out what Hawaii is really going to ignore #13 this year.

[Smiley]

Originally posted by Bob M.
To the original question about NFHS Interpretation #13: I've spoken with the interpreter from NH who attended the NFHS Interpreters' meeting last month. This play is no longer in question. The Rules Committe in Indianapolis made it very clear at the meeting that their intention was to leave NF 10-2-1 as it was. This is a double foul since R fouled prior to gaining possession.

This is a known and conscious difference between Federation rules and NCAA rules. In NCAA, R could decline the penalty for K's foul and keep the ball with PSK enforcement against them--but not in Federation.

And by the way, we all need to remove one misconception from our minds: Team possession does not change when the kick crosses the ENZ. Until R catches or recovers the kick, Team K is still in team possession of the ball.

In SC (and apparently Washington according to a poster on the NFHS board), this is not an automatic double foul. R will be able to decline K's foul and keep the ball.

Other differences in SC are:

PSK applies to fouls that occur beginning at the snap.

The kick need not end beyond the ENZ for PSK to apply.

[Bob M.]

Smiley...sounds like SC is implementing PSK similar to the way that NCAA does. It's a much better iimplementation than the one currently defined by the Federation. Can I move to SC?

[Smiley]

Originally posted by Bob M.
Smiley...sounds like SC is implementing PSK similar to the way that NCAA does. It's a much better iimplementation than the one currently defined by the Federation. Can I move to SC?

Be glad to have you, Bob.

[KWH]

Originally posted by Bob M.
To the original question about NFHS Interpretation #13: I've spoken with the interpreter from NH who attended the NFHS Interpreters' meeting last month. This play is no longer in question. The Rules Committe in Indianapolis made it very clear at the meeting that their intention was to leave NF 10-2-1 as it was. This is a double foul since R fouled prior to gaining possession.

If the rationale was as you say: Since R fouled prior to gaining possession, then we could NEVER enforce PSK since Since R is NEVER in possession of the ball because all PSK fouls can only occur during a kick and once R gains possession the kick ends.

This is a known and conscious difference between Federation rules and NCAA rules. In NCAA, R could decline the penalty for K's foul and keep the ball with PSK enforcement against them--but not in Federation.

My answer to this is simple: The NCAA rule makes sense. NFHS interpretation 13 does not!

Why would we write, implement, or support a new rule in NFHS that requires the replay of a punt when a punt is clearly the second most dangerous play in football?
Answer: We wouldn't!

And by the way, we all need to remove one misconception from our minds: Team possession does not change when the kick crosses the ENZ. Until R catches or recovers the kick, Team K is still in team possession of the ball.

Team possession is not a factor for the purposes of PSK enforcement!:
Source: Football Fundamentals I.3. Page 66
AND
Since they got the ball with "Clean Hands" (as clearly described on page 73 of your rule book) if R commits a PSK foul and K fouls at any time during the play and R may keep the football following enforcement of the PSK foul if it declines the K foul.

Bottom Line: The intent of of the rule is best exibited by the following case play.
Play 1: 4th and 15 from the K5. While the scrimmage kick is in flight beyond the ENZ R1 holds at the K20. R2 catches the ball at the K40 and returns the ball for an apparent touchdown. During the play: A) K is flagged for Illegal Shift at the snap, OR B) K is flagged for a 5 yard facemask while the ball is still in flight during the kick, OR after R2 catchs the football and during the return run K6 is flagged for a 5 yard facemask.
RULING:In A, B, or C, R may keep the football following enforcement of the PSK foul if it declines the K foul making it 1st and 10 for R on the 50.
OR,
R may accept the K foul and thereby CREATE a double foul!

While some of you will disagree, this IS the intent of the rule (as written and experimented with by Kentucky) and I strongly believe the NFHS will correct this prior to the 2004 football season.
I do know that this is the correct interpretation for Oregon and California for the 2003 season.

Do the rulebooks clearly support what I just stated? NO

Do the rulebook clearly disprove what i just stated? NO

Is this interpretation the way Kentucky wrote the rule experimented with the rule last year? Yes

Is the rules committee in agreement on this issue? NO, they are split

Does it make sense to allow R to keep the ball after they have met the requirements of "Clean Hands"? YES

Is the country split on this issue? YES

In reality, is PSK an exception to NFHS rules? YES

Best advice on this issue: "Regardless of your feelings on this issue, you should interpret the rule under the guidelines of your state rules interpreter for 2003 and hopefully the rules committee will have the bugs worked out for 2004!" - Ronnie Matthews, Chair NFHS Rules Committee



[Edited by KWH on Aug 19th, 2003 at 03:46 AM]

[Bob M.]

Originally posted by KWH

If the rationale was as you say: Since R fouled prior to gaining possession, then we could NEVER enforce PSK since Since R is NEVER in possession of the ball because all PSK fouls can only occur during a kick and once R gains possession the kick ends.

[Edited by KWH on Aug 19th, 2003 at 03:46 AM]

REPLY: I agree with everything you said except the above statement. My statement was made in the context of a situation where both teams fouled during the down. Clearly, if only R fouls, then PSK may come into play. But in the original play (where both teams foul), according the the rules and according to what was said in Indianapolis, this is a double foul because R's foul was prior to them gaining final possession. This is exactly in line with NF 10-2-1 and 10-2-2 as currently written and is a known difference between NF and NCAA rules.

Does it make sense? I agree with you--NO it doesn't.