Jrut, how did r get the ball with clean hands? The clean hands definition is they foul after they gain possession. If they foul before the kick ends "which would otherwise be a psk foul" they do not get the ball with clean hands. I cite specific rules that define this as a double foul, please cite your specific rules, because you have yet to do that.

If K has punted, and R is returning the kicked ball, according the the NF, they got the ball with clean hands. That is the logic behind PSK in the first place. This is in the the NF Rules CD and in some of the writings about the new rule. There is a play on the CD that shows this is not an "automatic" double foul. This is also how it was explained at both Rules meetings I attended. This would be no different if we were talking about an intercepted pass. If B fouls after they have intercepted the ball, you do not call any foul by A a double foul if it happen before the interception.

Now unless you show me something other than what you have stated, I am not buying it. And really I am not trying to have a debate on it, I just want evidence that R cannot decline K's foul. You have shown me nothing other than saying, "it is because PSK does not apply." That does not make any sense to me. But then again, life goes on.

Peace

There are many kinds of plays where there can be double fouls. Sometimes one team is allowed to keep the ball if they decline a penalty.

Say A was to have an illegal shift and after an interception B illegally blocked in the back. B may decline the penalty and keep the ball but A is required to accept the illegal block in the back 10-2-2.

But say both teams held prior to the interception. Then if either team declines the penalty then we go back to the previous spot or spot of the foul and A keeps the ball 10-2-1. A would not want to take the yardage penalty and B would not want A repeat the down without the loss of yardage. So in this example it benefits neither team to decline the penalty.

Because possession doesn't change until the end of the kick the two fouls create a double foul as they were both in the same live-ball period prior to the ball changing possession. However if both fouls occur after the change of possession then R or B may decline the penalty to keep the ball Case Book 10-2-2 Situation C.

If you can provide a situation where B or R will benefit by declining the foul which may have been a double foul then give us that example.

[Edited by Warrenkicker on Aug 26th, 2003 at 03:56 PM]

Jrut,
They are not returning the kicked ball when the foul occurs, in the situation that started the thread the foul occurs before the end of the kick, therefore before the change of possession and the rule I cited above kicks in.. I do agree that they need to change it and make the change of possession concurent with the ball crossing the ENZ but they didn't so in the mean time we have to go with what is written. As for not buying "PSK does not apply", where is a rule that you can cite that says that this would not be a double foul? I would love to see it because that would make this a whole lot easier to explain to a coach. I also wish that our state association would do like some of the others and go ahead and change their interpretation to make it so here, but alas they as of yet haven't done that...

As I said, there is a play on the NF Rules CD for this year that says PSK would apply on a foul committed by K (I believe their play was an illegal shift). R committed a foul while the ball was in the air, past the ENZ and beyond the LOS. In the NF CD example and they called this a PSK enforcment situation, if R declines K's foul. Now maybe you have not see this, but this was shown at a rules meeting and by one of my association's Clinician (which is certified by the State) in a separate meeting. I am going to a meeting tonight and will ask about this very situation. I will report what I am told.

Peace

Jrut, that would be great, if you know where I can get a copy of the cd I would like to get it and study it for that as well as everything else that may be on it. thanks for the info...

My understanding is that the CD is availible to anyone that wants it. Check the NF website or catalog. I am sure anyone can get it. Our Clinicians used this in all the rules meetings I attended.

Peace

If R is returning the ball when the foul occurs PSK cannot apply, as R is now is possession of the ball. 10-4-3d: "Basic spot is the spot where the kick ends when R fouls occur before the end of the kick ." (My emphasis). If R is returning the kick, the kick has ended, and any foul is enforced as if this were a running play. The whole reason the original play results in a double foul is that R has NOT yet gained possession when they foul. That makes all the difference.

Also, this is Situation 13 from the Fed. website:

SITUATION 13: With fourth and five from K’s 20-yard line, K is in an illegal formation at the snap. While K1’s punt is in flight, beyond the expanded neutral zone, R2 blocks K8 in the back at the 50-yard line. R4 catches the kick at R’s 36-yard line and returns it for a touchdown. RULING: This is a double foul. The penalties offset and the down shall be replayed. (2-16-2b; 10-2-1b)

Note that no options are given that allows R to keep the ball. 10-2-1b requires this to be a double foul.

There is another possible explanation to this question. JRutledge are you from a state where they are not using the PSK rules as written but more like NCAA rules?

Just passing the information.
 

Well, according to the NF powerpoint, R can decline K's penalty and keep the ball. I am not disputing what it might say in the Casebook, but it is not the interpretation on the Powerpoint Presentation. As a matter of fact, there was a play that went like this.

K's ball on their own 20, 4th and 10. During the snap K2 holds at the LOS, then K1 kicks the ball that goes beyond the LOS. While the ball is in the air, R1 clips K3 at K's 40, then R2 catches the ball at the 50 and runs to K's 35 and is tackled.

Ruling: PSK applies. R can retain the ball if they decline K's penalty. If K's penalty is declined, it will be R's ball on R's 45.

Now that is clearly the ruling and explaination the NF gave during in their NF Powerpoint Presentation. I agree that this is not covered in the NF Casebook, but if you have not noticed the NF made several mistakes with Rule 8-2-2 and many rulings surrounding that change. Even to the point they were emailing states and telling them, "we will have to address this in the next rulebook."

The example you gave is clearly not a double foul (according to the NF). PSK is designed and interpreted as R getting the ball with "clean hands." K is considered to be giving up their right to the ball by kicking it away in the first place, so any penalty by K can be declined if PSK applies and can be declined by R and they can keep the ball. Not much different than and interception or any other turnover that happens with "clean hands."

All I can do is pass this along. As I stated before this was in every single Rules Meeting I attended (which was 3 of them). Our clinicians have made this clear (2 of them made it clear tonight). This is not a double foul if R decided to decline K's penalty, not much different than many other situations.

Peace

This is funny because Rut says the Fed says one thing and yet I have gotten and seen the Fed saying something totally different (situation 13 straight off the NFHS web site). Everything I have seen from the Fed says this play is a double foul and must be replayed. The rule book as stated in the thread also backs up that this is a double foul. When the ball crosses the ENZ possession has NOT changed at all at that point. So if both K and R have fouled then it is a double foul per 2-16-2-b, 2-16-2-g (I site this because the play is not PSK in this case since K fouled and K fouling in not a peramater for PSK to apply) and 10-2-1-b. 10-2-1-b clearly states that the down must be replayed. R has not gotten the ball clean hands and like I said above it is not PSK because K fouled before the end of the kick as well.
My state also uses a power point presentation for our state rules meeting and the presentation and my state director of officials both said this is a double foul.
You keep pointing out your little interception play Rut but keep citing that B committed the foul after the INT. Well that is apple and oranges my friend as in this situation R has not recieved possession and in yout INT case possession had already changed.
Replay the down. Period. End of discussion.


[Edited by cowbyfan1 on Aug 27th, 2003 at 12:58 AM]

gentlemen, on another post there is a direct link to the NHFS powerpoint presentation. In that presentation, they specifically state that when the ball crosses the enz if r has not fouled prior to that, then they are given the benefit of recieving the ball with clean hands....

It is on the powerpoint.
 

cmathews, created a post and looked at the very thing I told him was stated by the NF. An interpretation is clearly in the powerpoint presentation, which is used by many of our clinician. This was stated at our clinics and rules meetings. If you do not believe me, then do what you feel is best. I am not calling this a double foul, because the very play I discribed was cited and it was not considered a double foul. And I work on a crew (a 6th man separate from my regular crew) with two IHSA Clinicians and we have had this discussion a few times on this very issue and all the possiblilities of PSK. It is on the powerpoint presentation. But then again, it is not like PSK is going to happen 40 times a game either. ;)

Peace

Enough yet????
 

Guys,

After 5,000 posts regarding enforcement of double fouls vs. the "clean hands" approach for PSK, it is aparent to me (and maybe others?) that we're not going to get a national consensus on how to rule on this one. It is going to be a local issue decided by our associations.


Why don't we move on to other pressing issues like the legal color of pylons or bean bags....... ;)

I agree.

As I said before, I didn't want to debate the merits of the interpretation. I just wanted to find out what the rest of the country was being told how to handle it.

Thanks for your input!