PSK --- Double fouls --- One more time

[STEVED21]

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

[jack015]

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.

[Theisey]

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.

[Warrenkicker]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[cmathews]

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

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by cmathews
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

[cmathews]

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.

[JRutledge]

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

[STEVED21]

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.

[PSU213]

Originally posted by JRutledge
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

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.

[cmathews]

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.

[Warrenkicker]

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.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by STEVED21
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.

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

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by cmathews


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.

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