PSK Yet Again

mikesears · #1 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 09:01am

NFHS:

K 4/10 at R-48. K's punt travel to R-10 yard line where R1 muffs the catch. With K players approaching quickly, R1 kicks the ball (at the R-8) out the back of his own end zone.

This would result in a touchback (because force is not a factor on any kick entering R's endzone) and R would then have the penalty enforced from the R-8 (PSK enforcement). R's ball 1/10 at the R-4, right?

James Neil · #2 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 09:10am

Quote:

Originally posted by mikesears
NFHS:

K 4/10 at R-48. K's punt travel to R-10 yard line where R1 muffs the catch. With K players approaching quickly, R1 kicks the ball (at the R-8) out the back of his own end zone.

This would result in a touchback (because force is not a factor on any kick entering R's endzone) and R would then have the penalty enforced from the R-8 (PSK enforcement). R's ball 1/10 at the R-4, right?

Sounds right to me Mike . The PSK spot is the R-20. Foul behind the PSK spot is enforced from the spot of the foul. 1/2 the distance to the goal line puts it at the R-4. Good call !

Smiley · #3 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 11:04am

That's right. R has incentive to commit fouls that keep K from getting the ball, because doing so ensures they will keep the ball after penalty enforcement. That is unless K has already committed a foul, or subseqently commits a foul during the same down. Then its a double foul and the down is replayed. Makes a lot of sense doesn't it.

cmathews · #4 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 04:01pm

Gentlemen,
I humbly disagree. There is a new force applied with the illegal kick. 2-13-1 ....after a backward pass, fumble or kick HAS BEEN GROUNDED a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff.... I assume that the kick is grounded since R muffed it. With this in mind I believe we have a safety.

Smiley · #5 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 04:06pm

Wrong! Force is not a factor on kicks going into R's end zone. Touchback.

PSU213 · #6 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 04:09pm

Quote:

Originally posted by cmathews
Gentlemen,
I humbly disagree. There is a new force applied with the illegal kick. 2-13-1 ....after a backward pass, fumble or kick HAS BEEN GROUNDED a new force may result from a bat, an illegal kick or a muff.... I assume that the kick is grounded since R muffed it. With this in mind I believe we have a safety.

Force is NEVER a factor for kicks going into R's endzone; such a kick is ALWAYS a touchback (and of course the kick does not end until someone gains possession). Whether the kick is grounded has zero bearing on this situation. Unfortunately I don't have my rulebook with me or I'd give you the exact rule references.

James Neil · #7 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 04:50pm

[/B][/QUOTE]

Unfortunately I don't have my rulebook with me or I'd give you the exact rule references. [/B][/QUOTE]

I do

...NF 2-13-4 ...Force is not a factor:
a. On kicks going into R's end zone, since these kicks are always a touchback regardless of who supplied the force

cmathews · #8 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 04:56pm

2-23-9 .....when a ball is loose following an illegal kick it is treated as a fumble.....I am just trying to keep R from benefiting from an obvious penalty... maybe, and here I go trying to guess what the federation means, which we all know is a mistake, but maybe the kick into r's endzone is assumed to be a legal kick...

Theisey · #9 (**permalink**) Tue Aug 12, 2003, 07:39pm

Quote:

Originally posted by cmathews
2-23-9 .....when a ball is loose following an illegal kick it is treated as a fumble.....I am just trying to keep R from benefiting from an obvious penalty... maybe, and here I go trying to guess what the federation means, which we all know is a mistake, but maybe the kick into r's endzone is assumed to be a legal kick...

##No, this cannot be assumed to be a legal kick. It's a foul for illegally kicking the ball (sorry, I have to use that term because that's my NCAA thinking even though NF does not differentiate between illegal kicks and illegally kicking he ball).

The result is a TB with a PSK foul as the others have indicated.

You would be correct about a Safety (with PSK enforcement) it this were an NCAA game.

Smiley · #10 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 08:23am

I think I see where cmatthews is confused. True, the illegal kick is treated as a fumble, when it is the only kick during the down. In this case, however, the original kick never ended. Remember, a kick does not end until possession is gained or it is dead by rule. Therefore, the original legal kick went into the endzone. The fact that it was illegally kicked prior to going into the endzone has no significance other than the fact that it is a foul. Hope this helps.

cmathews · #11 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 08:50am

Maybe this is one of those situations that the Fed now needs to address...here is one more thought...allthough I do think it should probably be a TB. If the illegal kick is to be treated as a fumble, and a fumble is defined as lost player possesion, it wouldn't be a huge reach to say the kick ended...because as was mentioned above, you can't assume that the fed means a legal kick into the end zone, you can't really assume that the illegal kick is the only kick on the play that says it should be treated as a fumble...I think you could argue these points with a coach and win, and thus keeping R from benefiting from the foul... but in reality I will go with the more popular ruling

Touch Back PSK enforcement

PSU213 · #12 (**permalink**) Wed Aug 13, 2003, 08:34pm

Quote:

Originally posted by cmathews
Maybe this is one of those situations that the Fed now needs to address...here is one more thought...allthough I do think it should probably be a TB. If the illegal kick is to be treated as a fumble, and a fumble is defined as lost player possesion, it wouldn't be a huge reach to say the kick ended...because as was mentioned above, you can't assume that the fed means a legal kick into the end zone, you can't really assume that the illegal kick is the only kick on the play that says it should be treated as a fumble...I think you could argue these points with a coach and win, and thus keeping R from benefiting from the foul... but in reality I will go with the more popular ruling Touch Back PSK enforcement

First, you could argue those points, but they will probably be over the heads of 99% of the coaches.

As for R benefiting from committing the foul: sometimes taking the penalty is the "smart" move considering the alternative. If a B cornerback is beat and his choices are take the 15 (or 30) yard DPI call or give up a TD, the smart play is to tackle the receiver, lose the yards, but keep the 6 off the board. Here B had benefited from committing a foul, but I think most people would argue that he made the right play. In the kick play presented, R's only choices may be commit a foul and keep the ball, or run the high risk of having K recover in great field position. Its not really our job to determine if a team benefits from committing a foul.

Forksref · #13 (**permalink**) Sat Aug 23, 2003, 12:27am

Good question and thought-provoking responses. You guys are making me get into my rule book. This is a good thing.

Rule 2-13-4-a states that: Force is not a factor on kicks going into R's endzone since these kicks are always a touchback regardless of who supplied the force.

I was wondering if this is still a kick, since it was grounded. By definition this is still a kick since no one has gained possession and the ball has not become dead.(2-23-2) Thus, 2-13-4-a is in effect here.

I believe we have a touchback. Basic spot is the 20 and the foul occurred behind the basic spot (R8)so the penalty enforcement is from the 8, half the distance, first and ten for R at R4.