Let's see who can crack this one...

[SCHSref]

4th and 3 from B's 10 yd line.  A (which is K now) lines up in a FG formation (everything legal).  Legal snap, legal kick and the ball is low, but looks to be splitting the uprights for the apparent 3.  B47 (which is R) is 9 yds deep in the EZ when he gets the idea to climb up on B37's back, jump, and successfully knock the ball down to keep it from going through the uprights. 
The BJ and the LJ signal   , and then  .

Ruling?

[BIG UMP]

IPC, 9-4-3e

[prab]

Illegal personal contact by B47 (9-4-3e)

If A(K) is smart enough to accept the penalty it will be A's ball 1st & goal at the B 5 yard line.

If A(K) is not smart enough to accept the penalty it will be B's ball 1st & 10 from the B 20 yard line after a touchback.

B47 should try out for the gymnastics team.

[Atlanta Blue]

If A(K) is smart enough to accept the penalty it will be A's ball 1st & goal at the B 5 yard line.

If A(K) is not smart enough to accept the penalty it will be B's ball 1st & 10 from the B 20 yard line after a touchback.

Except in Calvinball, are you even going to allow A the option?!?!?

[SCHSref]

So, did everyone forget about PSK?

[Atlanta Blue]

So, did everyone forget about PSK?

That does make it interesting, good call.

So R intentionally fouls, and directly benefits from that foul.

Ralph, I think this one demands a rule modification.

[prab]

So, did everyone forget about PSK?

I don't think that this qualifies as a PSK foul because K will be next to put the ball in play.  2-16-2h5

[SCHSref]

I don't think that this qualifies as a PSK foul because K will be next to put the ball in play.  2-16-2h5

On 4th down, k will be the next to put thr ball into play in an unsuccessful FG try?

[prab]

Except in Calvinball, are you even going to allow A the option?!?!?

Yes, but remember (from a previous discussion) that I would also allow the captain who won the coin toss to elect to kick off to start the game.

[Kalle]

So, did everyone forget about PSK?

How is the NFHS PSK rule worded? In NCAA PSK does kick in but the penalty results in a safety (foul behind the basic spot at B/R-20). Of course, team B still benefits if they lead by two or three points and time expires during the down.

[Atlanta Blue]

How is the NFHS PSK rule worded? In NCAA PSK does kick in but the penalty results in a safety (foul behind the basic spot at B/R-20). Of course, team B still benefits if they lead by two or three points and time expires during the down.

In FED, foul would be enforced from the end of the kick, which is in the end zone, which would make it a safety.

I hate to bring this up, but is anyone going to try to penalize under the "unfair acts" rule?  Here's my problem with that: the unfair acts rule is for things don't have specific rule coverage, and this has a specific rule.  However, even the case book has an example of a play that has specific rule coverage, but it allows the referee to impose the unfair act rule in place of that rule coverage.

Think of the play where a returner breaks free and is running down the sideline for an apparent touchdown.  A "player" (uniformed team member) on the bench steps onto the field and tackles him.  Even though there is specific rule coverage (illegal participation), it would be equitable for the referee to award the touchdown.

in this case, rather than let R benefit from their foul, would/could/should the referee award the field goal?

[SCHSref]

AB...it's not the end of the kick, but the foul happens behind the basic spot.

[SCHSref]

No...since this is specifically civered in the rule book, i would not award them an FG

[prab]

AB...it's not the end of the kick, but the foul happens behind the basic spot.

This is a loose ball play.  Why isn't the basic spot the previous spot? 

[Atlanta Blue]

AB...it's not the end of the kick, but the foul happens behind the basic spot.

Let me reword, but come to the same conclusion: For PSK fouls, fouls behind the PSK spot are spot fouls.  The PSK spot is where the kick ended, which was in the end zone.  So you have a foul by R that has to be enforced in the end zone: safety.

[Atlanta Blue]

This is a loose ball play.  Why isn't the basic spot the previous spot?

Because PSK fouls aren't treated as a loose ball play.

[Ralph Damren]

  While we have 9-4-3e (no player shall position himself on the shoulders of a teammate to gain an advantage) , it alone isn't stretched to blocking a field goal attempt that probably would be good. While we have 9-6-4a (substitute enters and enters and participates during a down), it alone isn't stretched to cover the sub making a TD saving tackle.....

....ALONG COMES OLE' 9-9-1...THE UNFAIR ACTS RULE FOR APPLICATIONS SUCH AS THESE.
TO BE ANNOUNCED TO THE FRENZED MASSES : THE UNFAIR ACT PREVENTED THE SUCCESSFUL FIELD GOAL. THE FIELD GOAL IS THEREBY AWARDED.

 

[Atlanta Blue]

No...since this is specifically civered in the rule book, i would not award them an FG

But so is this play:

Returner breaks free and is running down the sideline for an apparent touchdown.  A "player" (uniformed team member) on the bench steps onto the field and tackles him.  Covered under the rules as Illegal Participation, yet a TD can be awarded.

How do you reconcile that with the blocked FG in this post?


ADDED IN EDIT: Ralph got to my point.  I don't like it, I think it's a slippery slope, but IN THIS CASE, I think awarding the FG is the right call.

[SCHSref]

Let me reword, but come to the same conclusion: For PSK fouls, fouls behind the PSK spot are spot fouls.  The PSK spot is where the kick ended, which was in the end zone.  So you have a foul by R that has to be enforced in the end zone: safety.

I didn't disagree with your original conclusion.

[SCHSref]

But so is this play:

Returner breaks free and is running down the sideline for an apparent touchdown.  A "player" (uniformed team member) on the bench steps onto the field and tackles him.  Covered under the rules as Illegal Participation, yet a TD can be awarded.

How do you reconcile that with the blocked FG in this post?


ADDED IN EDIT: Ralph got to my point.  I don't like it, I think it's a slippery slope, but IN THIS CASE, I think awarding the FG is the right call.

Personally, I think it would be safe either way. Saying I wouldn't do it doesn't mean that I would chastise someone who did

[Atlanta Blue]

Personally, I think it would be safe either way. Saying I wouldn't do it doesn't mean that I would chastise someone who did

It's a really ugly area, because there is a rule.  But the player off the bench play has a rule, as does 9.9.1A, and in both cases, the R applies "unfair act".  Problem is, the unfair act rule says it should ONLY be applied  when there is no specific rule.

It seems to MEAN that the "unfair act" rule should be applied when the outcome of applying the rule isn't equitable, and I REALLY don't like going down that path.

[sir55]

9-10-5 gives the R authority to award the score if in his opinion the act described in the OP made a travesty of the game.
 "ART. 5 . . . Neither team shall commit any act which, in the opinion of the referee, tends to make a travesty of the game.
PENALTY: Arts. 1, 2, 5 – Unfair act – (S27) – the referee enforces any penalty he/she considers equitable, including the award of a score;"
This allows the R to award the score even though there is specific rule coverage but the result of the act is not adequately addressed by the penalty.

[bbeagle]

Couldn't the referee give A the following options:
1) 2-point Safety and receive the ball (PSK foul)
2) 3-point FG and kick off the ball (unfair act)

[Atlanta Blue]

Couldn't the referee give A the following options:
1) 2-point Safety and receive the ball (PSK foul)
2) 3-point FG and kick off the ball (unfair act)

COULD he?  I suppose so.  But if you are going to go the route of Unfair Act, I think you have to go all the way and not make it optional.  The Unfair Act call is a big, drastic step, and to start giving options means you aren't SURE that is what it was.

K might be better off with the safety, since they get the ball back also.  But they were trying to kick a FG, R did something unfair to prevent the FG that doesn't seem equitable.  If you are going to go with "unfair act equitable solution" (which I'm still not SURE I would do, but I lean that way), then you give K what they would have had absent the unfair act.  That's the whole point of the penalty.

[Bwest]

Does timing alter anybody's ruling on this play?

For example, if this occurred on the first drive of the game are you more likely to go safety vs last play of the 4th quarter with A down by 3?