### No need to worry about the rest of the world, just what our NY state interpretor has passed down to us. Double/offsetting fouls is a replay. end of story.

It appears that everyone is not provided with the same information. One of the reasons you are seeing a debate over the interpretation. ;)

Peace

My 2 cents
 

I have to agree with Theisey.
No need to worry about the rest of the world. Here in Oregon our Rules Interpretor has made it clear!
(but only for the state of Oregon.)
Play 13:
4th and 20 from the K-20. R10 catches the ball at the 50 and returns it for an apparent TD. While K's punt is in flight R15 holds K2 at the K-40. K5 is guilty of a 5 yard facemask; A) at the LOS prior to the ball crossing the ENZ, or B) at the K35 while the ball is in flight, or C) at the K35 after R10 has caught the ball and begun his advance.
Ruling: In A, B, or C the captain of R may decline K's foul and retain the football after PSK enforcement (1st and 10 for R at the R40)
or,
R may accept the K foul thus "creating" a double foul, in which case you would replay the down.

Comments:
R has met the requirments of "Clean Hands" (as described on page 73 or the 2003 NFHS Rule book) when the kicked ball crosses the ENZ prior to any R foul.

"Team possession" is not a factor since post-scrimmage kick applies as described on page 66 (I.3.) of the 2003 NFHS Rule Book.

This is not a "loose ball play" or a "running play" (as per 2003 NFHS Rule Book 2-31-1a, 2-31-2, 10-3-1a, 10-3-2) rather this is a PSK play with "special enforcement!"

And,
In your 2003 NFHS rule book you write the words ..."unless post-scrimmage kick applies." to the end of Rule 10-2-1b.

Ronnie Matthews, (whose name appears on page 1 and his picture appears on page 3 of your NFHS Rule Book) says this; "While the wording around the new PSK rule may be confusing and can be interpreted in different ways, you are instructed to follow the direction of your state rules interpretor. Hopefully the rules committee can "clean up" the rule books prior to the 2004 season."

Bottom Line: Listen to Ronnie Matthew's advice!

But thats only what we are doing in Oregon (aka God's Country)

PS: Since Theisey won't be calling any games in Oregon, and I won't be calling any games in New York,
we are "both technically correct!"

-Nuff said





[Edited by KWH on Aug 28th, 2003 at 01:46 PM]

I hope everyone is in agreement, a double foul is treated as in the past, PSK or not.

Last winter when the revision first came out, I personally asked Jerry Diehl about possession and double fouls and his reply was "nothing changes."

The book does support it because there are no changes to possession or double fouls references.

I profess to be no expert in NCAA rules and would ask someone who is to confirm that the NCAA PSK rule does give R the option of declining K's foul, therefore, removing the double foul provision and allowing R to keep the ball.

Unfortunately, if this situation occurs chances are the coach will not believe the replay of the down. Just hope you never see this.

### Ed. Yes, under NCAA rules, team-B may decline a team-A foul and have their PSK foul enforced so they keep the ball.
It is spelled out explicitly as an exception to NCAA 10-1-4.
Unlike NF, the words "exceptions" are used many times in the rules. That does not complicate matters to us at all, as we NCAA guys have been working with them for years. PSK is really easy to understand even with NCAA exceptions as PSK is an exception to begin with. I really beleive the NF way is harder to officate, but should not be a problem.
Most NF officials aren't dumb!

Re: My 2 cents
 

### Any idea what he means by "clean up" ??

### I'd have no problem, it looks to be nearly identical to NCAA. I've got 10 years of working with it.
I'd keep you out of trouble here it you did move out this way.

Not so fast.
 

No, we are not all in agreement. For one I have already stated what is on the NF Powerpoint presentation that makes it clear that R can decline K's penalties and keep the ball.

I have to disagree with that statement. If you read on the top of page 73, where the <b>Comments on the Rules Revisions</b> are located. They use the "clean hands" reference there as well and give a greater understanding of what the intent of PSK is in the first place. My question is then why is "clean hands" used if their intent was to make fouls by K and R during many of these situations a double foul? The term "clean hands" is used to make sure we do not cancel a play out and rule a double foul on a change of possession play. That is the only place the term is used. If this kind of play is not used for "clean hand," then what kind of play are they referring to?


Considering one of our Asst. Directors of the IHSA is on the NF Football Board now and attended this past meeting where the changes were made, it is clear the intent was and how he decided to train his Rule Interpreters. And the use of the powerpoint presentation from the NF was also very clear and exact.


In our state, if the coaches paid any attention, we will not have that problem. But then again, the key is "if." I guess at the end of the day, all that matters you are told in your state and at your meetings. But around here, if someone calls this a double foul, it would not be a good thing.

Peace

I also contend that situation 13 on the NFHS web site is clear and to the point. The situation came out AFTER the power point presentations were made and the Fed has clearly stated that this is a double foul and the down will be replayed as change of possession has not taken place at this point, and the double foul falls perfectly in line with rule 10 covering this.
As Ed has wrote in his articles and what the Fed has written, this a new spot of enforcement rule. It does not change the rules for possession and it does not change the rule concerning fouls by both teams 1.) before change of possession 2.) after change of possession and 3.) if one team fouls before and the other fouls after change of possession.
People are losing site of one thing as well. It is the FED that states the rules and if the FED makes an interpetation on it, that is the way it should be called. Sitaution 13 that is CURRENTLY on the web site states that this is double foul and replay of down and as Rut put it, I hate it for you if you do not call it this way.
Also, as I stated before, where does a foul by K make this PSK? There are 4 requirments for PSK. A foul by K is not one of them so PSK does not apply. So we here in Oklahoma, where football is really king, will stick with the Fed ruling on this.

When in Rome........
 

In my state, I am not going to be dealing with coaches that even know what Situation 13 is. I am going to deal with coaches that saw the <b>NF Powerpoint presentation</b> at a IHSA Rules meeting explaining what is PSK and what is not. Also on that Powerpoint presentations was chop block examples, Free Blocking zone examples, fouls on scoring plays examples and all the other new rules or changes for 2003. After all of that infromation on this presentation, I have not heard one person from my state quote Situation 13 as a just and correct interpretation from the NF. And for the record, we even debated this very issue we are discussing now about a double foul. For those that even read the Official's Quarterly, they might notice a contradiction. But our Rules Interpreters told us what to do, and a double foul was not it. And I am also in an association that has D1 Crew Chiefs and officials in one of my associations, they have interpreted this rule as the NCAA type on most levels. All I am doing is passing along what is the prevailing wisdom from my state, based on the information that the NF gave them and how it was interpreted. This was the same information given in the 3 Rules meetings I was able to attend.

So if your state is doing something different, or was not presenting the Powerpoint to your fellow officials, I can see how Situation 13 would be your "Bible" on what to do. And at the end of the day, this was just a major mess up year for the NF Football Committee in 2003

Peace

Two live ball fouls, one by each team, is a double foul and they offset. PSK is for only one foul (by R) and all 4 criteria must be met.

REPLY: The bottom line, and the root cause of all the confusion is that the Federation itself has 'published' via its rule book, case book, web site, and their Interpreters' Meeting various conflicting interpretations on a number of PSK situations. This situation (K and R fouls prior to the end of the kick) is a good example. Any of us could pick their "favorite" interpretation and defend it to the death. The problem is exacerbated by some folks' knowledge of the NCAA rule that Tom pointed out above. However, according to Steve Hall who attended the Federation Interpreters' Meeting in Indianapolis last month, the Fed Rules Editors--including Diehl--went on record saying that Rule 10-2-2 has <u>not</u> changed from last year, i.e. if both teams foul prior to a change of possession, it's a double foul--no need to consult either captain. The fact that one of those fouls may have been subject to PSK is interesting but completely immaterial to the enforcement. They know that this is different from the NCAA rule but the decision to leave 10-2-2 as is was a conscious one.

One other observation...the Rules CD that JRut mentions, I don't believe that it is a Federation publication, or is it?? If not, it cannot be viewed as anything more than someone's opinion of how the worl operates. If it is a Federation publication, then it's just another conflicting source of confusion.

Finally, do what your state interpreter tells you to.

Re: Not so fast.
 

The statement is taken out of context. R must have "clean hands" at the time the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone in order to retain possession..."the rule change does not change the concept that the receiving team has to get the ball with clean hands, but rather, that they have to have clean hands until the ball crosses the expanded neutral zone."

Example: R53 a linebacker 4 yards from the line of scrimmage charges toward the line and clips K78 who was on the line of scrimmage at the snap. All this occurs before the kicker gets the snap off. After the ball crosses the ENZ, R20 blocks K34 in the back beyond the ENZ.

You have a PSK and a non-PSK foul. If K chooses to accept the non-PSK foul -- I would not even give them a choice -- which occurred before the ball crossed the ENZ. K would get to retain possession because when the ball crossed the ENZ R's did not have "clean hands."

I misspoke about it there being a CD. There appartently is no CD. I assumed there was a CD because one of the Clinicians gave a presentation that had a Powerpoint presentation on it. Instead Powerpoint Presentation, can be downloaded right off the internet on the NF website. There are two plays I believe that cover this senerio we are discussing here, and they are not considered automatic double fouls as most think. There are even a few plays from NASO or Referee Magazine on the presentation from the April issue. Even one of the plays covers a situation where the ball goes beyond the ENZ and comes back behind the ENZ and suggests PSK criteria has been met, because the ball and the foul took place beyond the ENZ. And if you read many of the comments with officials, this goes against the prevailing wisdom of many. And because our State officials love stuff the have to do with Powerpoint and visual examples, this was widely used in my state.


Because all of them used the NF Presentation, this is not a double foul in their minds. So if we want to be considered for playoffs or knowing our stuff, it is in our best interest to not use the Situation 13 ruling. At least until something had been addressed with the NF contradictions.

Peace

HMMMM People say they have D1 crew member in their local association that says this would not be a double foul. Makes me wonder... Watching Nebraska/Ok State game. Punt play.. Ok State called for holding, PSK situation but low and behold K is called for kick catch interference. RULING: Double foul, replayed the down. Who's wrong???? Or let me guess will it be a Big 12 officails calling it different then what the NCAA says?? Kinda like some states doing it different then what the Fed says.

How do you know where the "hold" on team-B was located?
Did the replay show exactly where that hold took place? If it did not meet the criteria for PSK, then a reply would be correct.
I'm just asking as I did not see this game. It's pretty darn clear in the rules as to just what should happen.