Clean hands and PSK

[cmathews]

As was discussed in a different thread, when is R given the benefit of clean hands....The NHFS has stated that if R fouls after the ball crosses the ENZ then they are considered to have gotten the ball with clean hands....Jrut, thanks for pointing me to the NHFS site, I didn't find a CD but I did find a powerpoint presentation... anyone that is interested, go to this link and look for slide 14 for this specific point but the whole thing is a good tool

http://nfhs.org/Downloads/Football_PSK.ppt

[PSU213]

Originally posted by cmathews
As was discussed in a different thread, when is R given the benefit of clean hands....The NHFS has stated that if R fouls after the ball crosses the ENZ then they are considered to have gotten the ball with clean hands....

This is one of the inconsistencies of the PSK rule. If K does not foul, and R fouls beyond the ENZ after the ball crosses the ENZ, then R has "clean hands," and R gets to keep the ball after PSK enforcement. On the other hand if K fouls and then R fouls beyond the ENZ after the ball crosses the ENZ, they by rule do not have clean hands, and it is automatically a double foul. Hopefully they will clean this up in one of the "refinements" they mention in that powerpoint presentation. In our association we were told to delete the "clean hands" passage from the comments section on PSK (pg. 73 of the Rule Book).

I agree with what others (particularly JRut.) have said in the other thread, that the intent of the PSK rule would be to allow R to decline K's foul and keep the ball if both teams foul before change of possession and R's foul otherwise meets PSK requirements. Unfortunately based on that pesky rulebook and the NF interpretation, this has to be a double foul situation.

[Warrenkicker]

The way it was explained to us at our rules meeting by one of the federation's editorial committee was that PSK requires the foul by R to occur during the time a window was open. However a foul by K before the window opened would not allow the window for PSK to ever open. This would also be the case if K fouled at any time while the window was open.

[cmathews]

Has anyone seen a definitive answer from the NHFS that clears up their conflicting interpretations?

[BktBallRef]

Yes, SITUATION 13 states that it's a double foul. That's the latest interpretation from the NFHS. As PSU213 wrote, until something different comes out, that's the law.

[jfurdell]

Honestly, this isn't a big deal. The point of PSK is to prevent K from getting a cheap first down via an R foul. When you enforce a double foul, that doesn't happen anyway.

Besides, the chance you'll have a foul by both teams on a scrimmage kick is remote. The difference between replaying the down and enforcing an R penalty in this rare situation is just not that significant.

[BktBallRef]

Originally posted by jfurdell
Honestly, this isn't a big deal. The point of PSK is to prevent K from getting a cheap first down via an R foul. When you enforce a double foul, that doesn't happen anyway.

Besides, the chance you'll have a foul by both teams on a scrimmage kick is remote. The difference between replaying the down and enforcing an R penalty in this rare situation is just not that significant.

Agreed. You may see a PSK foul once all season. What are the chances that K will foul during that same play, prior to the change of possession?

Even so, the NFHS needs to straighten this crap out. They haven't handled this year's changes very well.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by cmathews
Has anyone seen a definitive answer from the NHFS that clears up their conflicting interpretations?

The only way this is going to be cleared up is use some common sense. The intent of the rule is very clear in the powerpoint and in their explaination of the rule on page 73, where they use the "clean hands" reference there as well to R getting the ball. If they did not intend for R to get the ball, then why even use "clean hands" has their reference at all dealing with this kind of play?

The NF just made mistakes on this, like they did with a couple of other rules they changed this year and they admitted they will have to take care of this year. We just had one of our IHSA Board Members elected to the NF Board, and this has been discussed with him by the folks at the NF. And the double foul was not what was endorced considering their intent of this rule.

Peace

[Theisey]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by BktBallRef

Originally posted by jfurdell
....
Even so, the NFHS needs to straighten this crap out. They haven't handled this year's changes very well.

I'm with you on that point!.

I finally took a look at that powerpoint file found on the NF site and while I could not find any file creation date, it looks like it was done very recently.
I was a bit ticked off at some of the statements in those "myths" charts and if you ask me, it looks like this was created for some damage control on the the part of the NF.

Even so, they missed some leye points we've been debating in this and other forums.

I wish every on good luck in whichever way they are going to enforce PSK based on their repective states interpretation. If anything, we just have to be sure we officials do it the same way from week to week across your state.

I would like to say that maybe next year the wording will be better, but I sense there are some very different views on this rule at the NF rules commitee level not to mention their insistence that PSK is not an exception to their rules. One can hope.

[cowbyfan1]

The only thing that is certain, JRut, is you and I need to agree to disagree on this.
I totally understand the purpose of the PSK but since K fouls, as pointed above, that window does not open at all. It is a double foul per situation 13 and per the rule book, namely 10-2-2 and even 2-32-1 and 2-16-2g. You may also want to reread 2-35. It states "A rule sometimes states or implies that a ball is dead or that a foul is involved. If it does not, it is assumed that the ball is live and that no foul has occured. If a foul is mentioned, it is assumed that it is NOT part of a double or multiple foul unless stated or implied. In the PSK rule it never states or implies that it is a PSK situation if K fouls.
Yes Fed needs to really clean up things with the new rule but until the Fed comes out and says something different this has to be ruled as a double (offsetting) foul and the down replayed.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: Steve Hall (some of you know him as SRH) was out at the Federation Interpreters' Meeting in July. He said that the Rules Committee specifically addressed the issues related to NF 10-2-1,2 and PSK. They said that it was a conscious decision not to change these two rules as a result of PSK and to leave it a double foul if R fouls prior to gaining possession. They knew it was different than the NCAA implementation, but they've decided to leave it as is--for the time being.

So Situation 13 on their web site is the correct interpretation--like it or not. I personally don't. And it does not matter whether K's foul occurs before the PSK window opens, while it is open, or even if it occurs after the PSK window closes. It's R's foul, and when it occurs relative to their possession of the kick, that determines whether this is a double foul or whether they have rights to the ball according to 10-2-2.

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by cowbyfan1
The only thing that is certain, JRut, is you and I need to agree to disagree on this.

Here is the bottom line. I do not care what Situation 13 says. Not because I want to disagree with the NF, but they put out contraditory information. Again, I had this very same conversation with an IHSA Clinician, who I work with on their crew on Saturdays. He clearly said that situation was wrong to what was said on the NF Powerpoint Presentation. If you officiate in Illinois, you saw the Powerpoint Presentation. Our state does not give out rulings off the internet. Right or wrong, we are clearly told to consider this a PSK situation and R getting the ball with clean hands. Maybe that is because we have a lot of college officials in my area and that is the NCAA ruling. Whatever the reason, this was what we were told way before the season said.

Now the moral of the story, do what you state tells you. Do what your association tells you. Do what your assignor tells you. I officiate 3 sports, it is clear to me that states can and do whatever they want to do if their "head people" say, "we want to handle it this way." Best example of that is the way we are suppose to handle our sidelines in Illinois this year. And the way we are doing that, is not a NF Ruling or supported mechanically. The NF dropped the ball on this one with the different information. It is clear they did not think it through and that is why we are debating it back and forth. Situation 13 was not discussed in our meetings, so personally, I do not care what it says.

Peace

[KWH]

Originally posted by Bob M.
REPLY: Steve Hall (some of you know him as SRH) was out at the Federation Interpreters' Meeting in July. He said that the Rules Committee specifically addressed the issues related to NF 10-2-1,2 and PSK. They said that it was a conscious decision not to change these two rules as a result of PSK and to leave it a double foul if R fouls prior to gaining possession. They knew it was different than the NCAA implementation, but they've decided to leave it as is--for the time being.

So Situation 13 on their web site is the correct interpretation--like it or not. I personally don't. And it does not matter whether K's foul occurs before the PSK window opens, while it is open, or even if it occurs after the PSK window closes. It's R's foul, and when it occurs relative to their possession of the kick, that determines whether this is a double foul or whether they have rights to the ball according to 10-2-2.

I have read, and read, and then I have re-read Steve Hall's (aka SRH) understanding of what he came away from the Interpreters Meeting with on this subject.
I disagree with Steve!
Our state's rules interpreter, our state's NFHS Rules Committee representative, and two of our most respected officials from our state were at the SAME MEETING as STEVE HALL! They came away with a completly different version of what happened! They totally and without reservation disagree with "Situation 13" on the NFHS website.
In our state (Oregon) in 2003, this is only a "double foul" if "R" accepts the K foul. If "R" declines the "K" foul they keep the ball after enforcement of the "PSK" foul.
This particular play has been issued to all football commisioners in Oregon with the aforementioned enforcement.

You guys can argue this until you are blue in the face but:
"Each state is to abide by the interpretation of their individual state rules interpreter!" per Ronnie Matthews
(Ronnie's picture appears on Page 3 of your rule book!)
I believe it would be best to follow Ronnie's direction on this matter and disregard what SRH says for now because
Ronnie carries a little more weight! Like it or not!

[Theisey]

The NF interpretor should be telling the state interpretors what to do, not the states telling the NF interpretor this is what we are going to do becuase "we" don't like your ruling.

That's what is happening and that is wrong!

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Theisey
The NF interpretor should be telling the state interpretors what to do, not the states telling the NF interpretor this is what we are going to do becuase "we" don't like your ruling.

That's what is happening and that is wrong!

States have the right (unless you can show me some legal issue that I am missing here) to do whatever they like. Especially when the "Mother Ship" cannot get their story straight. So I do not know how the NF can keep any state from coming up with a ruling/interpretation and only listening to one play, but all other information suggest something completly different. If "clean hands" interpretation was not intended, why put it in the rulebook in the explaination?

Peace