PSK and 6-3-11

[ElvisLives]

AR 6-3-11-IV states that, “Team A will accept the penalty, which cancels the illegal touching privilege.” 
It then goes on to say that B’s PSK clipping foul is enforced at the PSK spot, the B-20. 

If the illegal touching privilege is canceled, how can the B-20 be the PSK spot?  In the absence of the illegal touching privilege (canceled by acceptance of the clipping penalty), the PSK spot would have to be the natural end of the kick, the spot where it went OB, the B-2.

Where is the rule support for the B-20 being the PSK spot, if the illegal touching privilege is canceled?

Robert

[Andrew McCarthy]

2-25-11 Special case #2

[ElvisLives]

2-25-11 Special case #2

[corrected rule quote]
"When 6-3-11 is in effect, the postscrimmage kick spot is Team's B 20-yard line."
Acceptance of a penalty by either team cancels the illegal touching privilege.  So, 6-3-11 would no longer be in effect.

Robert

[Legacy Zebra]

6-3-11 is still in effect because the ball was batted in the end zone. Just because the illegal touching privilege is canceled doesn’t mean 6-3-11 isn’t in effect.

[ElvisLives]

6-3-11 is still in effect because the ball was batted in the end zone. Just because the illegal touching privilege is canceled doesn’t mean 6-3-11 isn’t in effect.

Legacy,
Just so you'll understand, this is not an argument of defiance or indignation.  It is purely a respectful academic discussion.  So please forgive me if I sound patronizing - it is unintentional.

You may be right, with regard to the intent.  But the rule language simply doesn't support your statement.

6-3-11 makes the batting not a foul - that's the 'special' part of 6-3-11.  But the batting is still a violation for illegal touching, and the artificial spot of the illegal touching is the B-20. 

But, an accepted penalty cancels illegal touching.

2-25-11-b-2 specifies that when 6-3-11 is in effect, the PSK spot is the B-20.  But, when a penalty is accepted, the illegal touching privilege is canceled, so 6-3-11 can no longer be in effect.

If that is where I am missing something, I welcome an explanation.

If team A batted the ball from the B-1 (illegal touching), and it went OB at the B-2, the B-2 would be the end of the kick, and, thus, the PSK spot. 
In the given AR, why would Team B be allowed to use the B-20 as the PSK spot, if they commit a PSK foul, and the natural end of the kick is the B-2?

If the intent is to have illegal touching in B's end zone result in the B-20 as becoming the PSK spot, irrespective of the acceptance of a penalty, then the rule should say so.
Something like (6-3-2-b), "This privilege is canceled if there is an accepted penalty for a live-ball foul by either team. (Exception: Illegal touching in Team B's end zone.)"  That would include 6-3-11.

Robert

[Andrew McCarthy]

The AR is the support. Just like the one where the punter is targeted just after he kicks it and we enforce from the previous spot.

[Kalle]

This is just sloppy rules writing since the change in 2015 removing the special status of the illegal touch in the end zone. The rules makers obviously want it to be an enforcement spot for PSK fouls but not for team A fouls.

[Legacy Zebra]

In this case, are you now going to penalize A for illegal batting? Because if you're saying that 6-3-11 is no longer in effect, then you must have a foul for batting a loose ball in the end zone. Obviously we are not going to retroactively have a foul on A because they want to accept the penalty for B's foul. Since you're not going to add a foul for ILB, then I think we can agree that 6-3-11 is still in effect. And because 6-3-11 is in effect, the PSK spot is the B-20.

[ElvisLives]

Legacy,
Thank you for the discussion.  We don’t agree, regarding the rule language, and we aren’t going to change each other’s minds.  Because of the AR, I can hang my hat on the B-20 being the PSK spot, in such situations.  But, the rule language is, IMHO, very ambiguous.

Thank you.

Robert

[bossman72]

Legacy,
Thank you for the discussion.  We don’t agree, regarding the rule language, and we aren’t going to change each other’s minds.  Because of the AR, I can hang my hat on the B-20 being the PSK spot, in such situations.  But, the rule language is, IMHO, very ambiguous.

Thank you.

Robert

I agree with Kalle.  This is just sloppy rules writing.  But, we know what their intent was via the AR's, although poorly executed.  They don't want to use the 20 for tack-on fouls, but they do want to use the 20 for PSK fouls.  Why?  I don't know.

I personally think they should change the rule so that if you commit illegal touching in the end zone, the ball should be dead and it be an automatic touchback.  Would make the rules more consistent in regards to cancelling illegal touching and simplify other penalty enforcements.

[JasonTX]

I remember at one time there was a statement that told us what to do in the event that there was conflict between the AR's and the Rules.  The rule would take precedence.  That statement is no longer in the book.

[ElvisLives]

I remember at one time there was a statement that told use what to do in the event that there was conflict between the AR's and the Rules.  The rule would take precedence.  That statement is no longer in the book.

Disappeared in 2011, with no explanation.  Part of Redding’s “reorganization” of the rules.  Not good or bad, just a fact.

Robert

[ilyazhito]

Does that mean that the old interpretation, that the text of the rule takes precedence over an approved ruling, no longer applies? That would be curious indeed.