I know this has been discussed to death but we had our rukes meeting last night. Here in NY, we were told that if K fouls prior to a scrimmage kick and R commits what would otherwise be a PSK foul, it is a always double foul. This doesn't seem to make sense given the concept of the PSK.

Again, I remember seeing something like this on an earlier post. But... is any other state doing it differently, the same or just not discussed.

Thanks

In North Carolina that would be a double foul - automatic replay of the down - no option.

The way it was explained to me is that PSK only adds an additional spot of enforcement under certain situations. It does not change other rules - i.e., live ball fouls by opponents prior to change of team posession always offset.

That's how the NF defined it and would like for the officals to call it.
It is not the way the NCAA handles it nor the way several other states have decided to call it.

Maybe next year, R can decline the K foul while having their PSK foul enforced.

I think there are 4 or more states not using PSK as it is written this season.

The example provided in the first post is correct based on the rules as written. Since the ball doesn't change possession until the kick ends both fouls occurred before the change of possession then they must offset and the down is repeated. Because of the foul by K PSK can not apply. Rules 2-16-2 & 10-4-3.

Where is the evidence?
 

Will someone show where exactly that R has to accept this penalty?

10.2.2 Situation C shows that a penalty can be declined by R and they retain the ball. Not quite the same situation, but nothing about R not being able to decline any penalty.

Peace

JRutledge, in the ruling it says "because there was a change of team possesion and because r's foul occured after the change"

I think this differentiates between the original question and why it must be replayed, one foul occured before change of possesion the other after the change of possesion

I just want to understand, why a penalty has to be accepted in this situations? Why would this be any different than a interception, allowing a team to decline the penalty and keep the ball with the enforcement of a penalty against them?

Peace

Jrut,
rule 10-2-1 a,b,c ...says It is a double foul if both teams commit fouls, other than unsportsmanlike or nonplayer, durint the same liv-ball period in which:
a there is no change of possesion

b there is a chnge of team possession, and the team in possesion at the end of the down fouls prior to the final change of possession

c there is a change of possession and the team in final possession accepts the penalty for its opponent's foul

in a b or c the penalties cance and the down is replayed.

I think this covers why it is replayed. As discussed before the federation views PSK as an alternate enforcement spot for some fouls that meet the PSK criteria. PSK as currently written does not change the rules as to when team possession changes especially with respect to fouls. Since the r foul occurs before the change of possesion they meet the criteria in B and therefore a double foul.

Not what 10.2.1. C says.
 

I am looking at 10.2.1. Situation C. There are two fouls on K, one at the snap and one by R (unsportsmanlike) during the play. They say if R accepts either penalty by K, you have a double foul. Then they go on to says that R may decline the penalty and keep the ball if this is done.

Now I agree that the basics are not changed, but PSK designed to not give K a cheap penalty and also establishes that K wanted to "give up the ball" on the play. If that is the intent of their rule, why could R not just decline a penalty and maintain the ball? They still have to take the penalty if K accepts it. I am still not seeing anyone show me the actual rule or casebook play that says this is automatically a double foul, no matter what.

Peace

Guys,

I didn't start this post to get opinions on this subject. I think we all can agree that PSK should apply given the rationale the NFHS used in creating it. It appears that the NFHS and each state association is using varying interps as to how it applies to the double foul sitch.

The rule book itself does not necessarily support the double foul concept.

Re: Not what 10.2.1. C says.
 

In 10.2.1 Situation C R's foul occurs after the kick has ended, so R in that case does have the option to keep the ball if they decline both of K's penalties (10-2-2). In addition, since the kick has ended before R fouls, PSK would not apply here anyway.

For fouls by R and K before the kick ends it is important to note that PSK only adds a new enforcement spot, it does not mean R is in possession after the ball crossed the NZ. A loose ball is possession of the team whose player last possessed the ball (2-32-2); in other words R is not in possession until they catch or recover the kick. Also, 10-2-1b states it is a double foul if both teams foul and the team in final possession fouls prior to the final change of possession. That rule does not say it is a double foul only if the team in final possession does not decline their opponent's foul--there is no wiggle room here, this situation is ALWAYS a double foul, replay the down.

I agree that based on the intent of PSK, R should be able to decline K's foul and keep the ball, but based on the rules, the down must be replayed in this situation.

I was in the middle of typing a reply when I saw PSU reply and say exactly what I was going to say...Steved21, I believe the rule I cited earlier does indeed support the fact that it is a double foul. I also agree that the federation needs to reconsider the way this is written, interpreted, and enforced, but until that time, we must abide by what is written or in the case of individual states choosing to use a modified version, what our state associations direct us to do.

I am going to use a phrase from Bktballref, I have cited the rules that I feel apply and support my stance. Can you do the same.

But in 10-2-1 situation C the foul by R is not unsportmanlike. It is a personal foul as unsportsmanlike are not to be included with other fouls to create a double foul 2-16-2b. Because K has no option on the acceptance of the foul committed by R 10-2-2, the acceptance of either foul by K results in the double foul.

This situation is similar to a pass play where A holds before or during the pass and B intercepts and during the return blocks in the back. B must decline the penalty for holding to keep the ball because the penalty for illegal block in the back is automatically accepted by rule. But by accepting the holding penalty it is a double foul and we repeat the down.

However on this play we have both offensive and defensive holding before the pass. Were either team to decline the penalty then we would have one penalty to mark off. But were B to subsiquently intercept the ball and declined the penalty we would mark off the penalty from the previous spot and A would keep the ball. Thus B did not keep the ball by declining the penalty.

They did screw this up.
 

I agree completely with you. It seems like they have an intent for the rule, but are trying to cover all the bases without actually covering all the bases. Or better yet, creating more problems with their rulings or interpretations. And still, no one has giving me the rule citing that does not make this a PSK situation, other than the fact that "my state says....." A smart coach will want to decline the penalty and just take the penalty as long as they get the ball in many of these situations. It is going to be hard to say to him, "PSK does not apply, because you cannot decline K's penalty." Especially when PSK is designed for R to get the ball with "clean hands."

Peace

Yes I can and did. R got the ball with "clean hands" and they can decline the penalty and keep the ball. The Illegal procedure did not affect the play and is something they do not have to accept.

Peace

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!

### 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.

I was curious and decided to research the NCAA book on double fouls. BTW NCAA calls them offsetting fouls.

Rule 10-1-4 reads...
4. If live-ball fouls by both teams are reported to the referee, each such foul is an offsetting foul, the penalties cancel each other, and the down is replayed (A.R. 10-1-4-II, IX and X).

Exceptions:

2 . When Team B’s foul calls for postscrimmage kick enforcement, Team B may decline offsetting fouls and accept postscrimmage kick enforcement.

So when the D-I official says B can decline A's foul and keep the ball he is right, at least, when playing by NCAA rules. NFHS has no such exception this year. Double foul with B or R's being a PSK -- replay the down.

cowboyfan1 - The situation you are talking about in the OSU/Neb game was where the kick catch interference by K was a post-possession foul. Thus the hold by R was PSK and so both fouls didn't happen with a change of possession between them. Since they were both post-possession they offset by NCAA rules.

At least that is my read on the play. I don't know NCAA rules that well.

How could kick catching interference be post-possession?

Go to the NFHS web site and look at "Situation 13" under the Football - 2003 Rules Interpretations. When K fouls prior to the kick and a foul by R meets the other criteria for PSK enforcement, it is a double foul and the down is replayed.

I had a chance to talk to another Clinician in my state, and he made clear that the NF made several mistakes in their publication. And he said that Situation 13 is in direct contrast to what was stated on the Powerpoint presentation that he gave to a couple associations. And he instructed that this is not a double foul. Mainly because the rule wording does not suggest it is with the "clean hands" reference. And also factoring that the NF was trying to substitute the NCAA Rule in their intent, this clearly would not be a double foul in NCAA Rules.

Peace

I believe that the NCAA has always allowed R to keep the ball for kick catch interference. It is all a matter of when possession is concidered to have changed. NFL says possession changes at the kick. NF says possession changes at the end of the kick. I think NCAA says possession changes when the ball crosses the ENZ. That is why NCAA is allowed to decline the penalties by K before or around the snap and keep the ball.

From the replay the hold appeared to be actually on the K player that ended up committing the KCI. Both flags were upfield from the punt and within yards of the punt returner. So the foul was PSK situation at that point until the KCI.

NCAA Rule 2-2 states possession changes just as in NFHS when a player controls the ball. Rule 6-4 covers opportunity to catch the kick and the penalty is R gets to keep the ball and a 15-yard penalty. Possession does not change at the expanded neutral zone, in fact Rule 10-2-2-e-3 covering post scrimmage kicks never makes mention of an expanded neutral zone, that is an NFHS concept. NCAA book refers to crossing the line of scrimmage and three yards beyond the line of scrimmage. Yeah, yeah, that is the "expanded neutral zone" per se.

NCAC has no definition for an expanded NZ. All we care about is whether a foul by R was within or beyond this 3 yard line. Wing men and U's can usually tell.

Team possession does not change just because the ball as crossed the NZ. That's what PSK is all about, to let Team-B keep the ball even though they had fouled before the kick has ended or was declared dead. That way the 3&1 principle can be applied using EOK as the basic spot.

Sure wish I could have seen this play. My gut feel is the enforcement was wrong.