RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: Bwest on March 01, 2015, 11:13:18 AM
-
Was doing some off-season rule book study today and came up with this situation:
K 4/10 @ K35. K lines up with 6 men on the line of scrimmage. K punts the ball to the R20, where it is caught and returned to the R40. During the kick, R84 holds gunner K88 at the K45. During the return, R25 blocks K28 below the waist at the R30.
Enforcement?
Here are my thoughts:
Initially I was going to enforce this as R 1/10 @ R10. R declines the K foul, K chooses the PSK foul since it hurts R the most.
But after looking in the book I may be inclined to offset these fouls by rule:
Rule 10-2-3:
If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and all R fouls are post-scrimmage kick fouls, then R may retain the ball.
This does not apply, since the second R foul is not PSK.
Rule 10-2-2:
If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and the play does not have a post-scrimmage kick foul, the team last gaining possession may retain the ball.
Does not apply since we DO have a PSK foul.
This just leaves us with 10-2-1-b in offsetting all of these fouls. Is this correct?
-
The only way you could have off-setting fouls is if R accepted K's foul for IF. Since R is the last team in possession, they will have the first choice of acceptance or declination of their opponent's foul. Under most circumstances, R will choose to keep the ball - which requires them to decline K's foul; after which K can choose either R foul.
10-3-3 speaks to plays with PSK because (I assume) the rules makers wanted to make sure the principles of PSK weren't lost even though, technically, the COP hadn't actually occurred.
10-2-2 speaks to COP plays with NO PSK foul(s) - like a fumble recovery or interception.
Regardless, both rules provide that the team last in possession may keep the ball if their foul(s) occurred "after" the COP.
-
Rule 10-2-3:
If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and all R fouls are post-scrimmage kick fouls, then R may retain the ball.
This does not apply, since the second R foul is not PSK.
Rule 10-2-2:
If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and the play does not have a post-scrimmage kick foul, the team last gaining possession may retain the ball.
Does not apply since we DO have a PSK foul.
This just leaves us with 10-2-1-b in offsetting all of these fouls. Is this correct?
No, your gut instinct was correct.
All of R's fouls are "post-possession." Even though the PSK foul occurred while K had possession, it's treated as if it happened after R gains possession. Both of R's fouls are after the change of possession, therefore they can decline K's foul and keep the ball or offset and replay. Their choice.
-
I understand that's probably the intent, but I'm not convinced (welcome to the offseason!)
Section 10-2 divides double fouls into categories.
10-2-2 deals with double fouls that do not have ANY PSK fouls, so we're not in that category.
10-2-3 deals with double fouls where ALL R fouls are PSK fouls. We're not in this category, although I suspect this may be the category the rules makers want this situation to be in.
10-2-1-a deals with double fouls with no change of possession. Obviously not in this category.
10-2-1-c deals with double fouls where K's foul is accepted. Not here either.
Which just leaves 10-2-1-b, which says that we offset any double foul if there is a change of possession and the team in final possession fouled before gaining possession. That is undoubtedly true in our case. There is an exception, that gives R an option to decline K's foul if ALL fouls by R are PSK. All fouls are not PSK, so the exception doesn't apply. Therefore we must offset by rule.
-
I understand that's probably the intent, but I'm not convinced (welcome to the offseason!)
Section 10-2 divides double fouls into categories.
10-2-2 deals with double fouls that do not have ANY PSK fouls, so we're not in that category.
10-2-3 deals with double fouls where ALL R fouls are PSK fouls. We're not in this category, although I suspect this may be the category the rules makers want this situation to be in.
10-2-1-a deals with double fouls with no change of possession. Obviously not in this category.
10-2-1-c deals with double fouls where K's foul is accepted. Not here either.
Which just leaves 10-2-1-b, which says that we offset any double foul if there is a change of possession and the team in final possession fouled before gaining possession. That is undoubtedly true in our case. There is an exception, that gives R an option to decline K's foul if ALL fouls by R are PSK. All fouls are not PSK, so the exception doesn't apply. Therefore we must offset by rule.
Take your play, but remove the PSK foul. Would you offset those two?
-
Take your play, but remove the PSK foul. Would you offset those two?
No, but then the play very clearly falls into the 10-2-2 rule category. Similarly, if there was no foul on the return, we would not offset because the play would fall into the 10-2-3 category.
-
No, but then the play very clearly falls into the 10-2-2 rule category. Similarly, if there was no foul on the return, we would not offset because the play would fall into the 10-2-3 category.
Read Bossman's first post again. For enforcement purposes, PSK fouls are treated as if they occurred after the kick ends. Prior to FED adopting the PSK rule, we had no choice but to offset.
-
Read Bossman's first post again. For enforcement purposes, PSK fouls are treated as if they occurred after the kick ends. Prior to FED adopting the PSK rule, we had no choice but to offset.
I understand that this is the philosophy for PSK fouls. I'll even concede that is probably what the rules makers intend.
But it's also clearly not what the book says. The book says that ALL R fouls must be PSK fouls, and it says this in more than one place. They could very easily have written "if all fouls by R are PSK or after the change of possession" and this would have been crystal clear not to mention more concise.
-
I understand that this is the philosophy for PSK fouls. I'll even concede that is probably what the rules makers intend.
But it's also clearly not what the book says. The book says that ALL R fouls must be PSK fouls, and it says this in more than one place. They could very easily have written "if all fouls by R are PSK or after the change of possession" and this would have been crystal clear not to mention more concise.
I think you are taking "PSK" fouls to mean those with enforcement under the "PSK" enforcement rules. The rule means all fouls that take place after the kick, literally all "post scrimmage kick fouls". If the foul takes place after R gains possession, it happened "post scrimmage kick".
Admittedly, it could be worded better.
-
Why would you assume that they would keep the ball if the enforcement moves them to the 10? Maybe I read the string to hastily.
-
I think you are taking "PSK" fouls to mean those with enforcement under the "PSK" enforcement rules. The rule means all fouls that take place after the kick, literally all "post scrimmage kick fouls". If the foul takes place after R gains possession, it happened "post scrimmage kick".
Admittedly, it could be worded better.
I think this may be the only way you can get there. But "post-scrimmage kick foul" has a very specific definition with certain attributes laid out in Rule 2.
I would hope that the NFHS wouldn't be this loose with their language if "post-scrimmage kick foul" in this case actually means any foul after the kick.
To bkdow: The difference is whether team B has the option to take the ball at the 10 or if there must be a re-kick.
-
I think this may be the only way you can get there. But "post-scrimmage kick foul" has a very specific definition with certain attributes laid out in Rule 2.
I would hope that the NFHS wouldn't be this loose with their language if "post-scrimmage kick foul" in this case actually means any foul after the kick.
To bkdow: The difference is whether team B has the option to take the ball at the 10 or if there must be a re-kick.
AH
-
To bkdow: The difference is whether team B has the option to take the ball at the 10 or if there must be a re-kick.
Better to say "or if there must be a replay of the down". B would not be required to kick if the down were to be replayed.
-
Better to say "or if there must be a replay of the down". B would not be required to kick if the down were to be replayed.
Right, of course not hEaDbAnG
-
I think this may be the only way you can get there. But "post-scrimmage kick foul" has a very specific definition with certain attributes laid out in Rule 2.
I would hope that the NFHS wouldn't be this loose with their language if "post-scrimmage kick foul" in this case actually means any foul after the kick.
A PSK foul occurs when all of 5 criteria are met (2-16-2h). One of those criteria is that the foul has to occur before the kick ends. In any scenario I can think of, it does not mean "any foul after the kick".
To bkdow: The difference is whether team B has the option to take the ball at the 10 or if there must be a re-kick.
As I said earlier, R would decline K's penalty in most cases in order to keep the ball. However, under certain circumstances (ultimate field position), they very well may choose to accept the penalty and replay the down.
-
As I said earlier, R would decline K's penalty in most cases in order to keep the ball. However, under certain circumstances (ultimate field position), they very well may choose to accept the penalty and replay the down.
But R can only decline K's penalty and keep the ball if all of their fouls are "PSK fouls" (10-2-3). So the only way you can let them keep the ball is if you also call their foul that came after gaining possession as a "post scrimmage kick" foul. It isn't a "PSK enforcement foul", but it is a foul that came "post scrimmage kick."
-
But R can only decline K's penalty and keep the ball if all of their fouls are "PSK fouls" (10-2-3). So the only way you can let them keep the ball is if you also call their foul that came after gaining possession as a "post scrimmage kick" foul. It isn't a "PSK enforcement foul", but it is a foul that came "post scrimmage kick."
Technically, yes; but then to Bwest's point, maybe it should be called a "post-possession foul" (with the same enforcement) as a simple way to differentiate it from a post-scrimmage kick foul. (Wasn't this term used in the NFL the past?) ;D
-
Well, the whole idea of PSK "special enforcement" is to treat those fouls the same as if the kick has already ended -- a COP foul. That gets us around changing loose ball foul definitions.
-
Fresh back into the frozen tundra and w/o rule book - under a stack of stuff, but ain't sure which stack :(.....
(1) Bring both captains together yEs: ^flag yEs:;
(2) To C-R : "You can take their penalty and we'll replay the down. If you decline it , you'll get
the ball at your 10. Do you want to put them back at their 35 ??? ????"
(3) if C-R says "Ayuh", do it; If C-R says "I want da' ball" go to C-K and say : "They have two fouls, I assume you want the one that will hurt them the most and give them the ball at their 10" -'Spect C-Kwill respond "Ayuh".
-
Okay, guys, look:
All I'm saying is that there IS IN FACT A DIFFERENCE between the two fouls. In the OP, we all agree that the foul during the return is NOT PSK. It just does not meet all the criteria of PSK. yEs:
But by simply applying the term - or IMPLYING it by enforcing it as PSK - can, understandably, confuse many officials/fans/coaches/broadcasters (ok...., just forget the last two).
Again, if we actually call it what it is (a post-possession foul), it might clarify things for everyone. The enforcement is actually consistent with a running play - which has actually turned into; and it doesn't conflict with enforcement choices following fouls by both teams during a COP down. tiphat:
That's it for me.
-
Try looking at it this way. The foul during the return was NOT pre-scrimmage kick. Don't treat it like it was.
-
So what's the correct result?
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
You have multiple fouls on R, both after COP with one of the PSK variety.
You also have a foul on K.
R may want to replay the down and can do so by accepting K's penalty.
if.....
R declines, K could choose which R foul they would want.
The PSK foul ,with basic spot the end of the kick, would be the best choice.
if.....
Time had expired during the play, K could then decline R's fouls and the period would end.
however.....
If R had originally accepted K's penalty, you would need to play an untimed down if the period had ended.
and......
If some kind of ugly critter came a' chugging out of the puckerbrush, gnawed up the football and began to chase the umpire sNiCkErS; you should no longer be concerned about penalty enforcement and only about if you could outrun the umpire sNiCkErS eAt& tiphat:
-
You have multiple fouls on R, both after COP with one of the PSK variety.
You also have a foul on K.
R declines, K could choose which R foul they would want.
The PSK foul ,with basic spot the end of the kick, would be the best choice.
So Ralph, you are applying 10-2-3, even though on of R's fouls is not a "PSK" foul?
If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of team possession and all R fouls are post-scrimmage kick fouls, then R may retain the ball.
I read 10-2-3 liberally, in that all of R's fouls came after the kick (and are thus "post-scrimmage kick"). But a strict conservative reading would say since one of R's fouls was not a "PSK" foul, R can't retain the ball, and all fouls offset.
Sounds like you are in my camp, but what would you use to prove it. And should we reword 10-2-3 to mean "all PSK and post COP fouls" rather than just "all PSK fouls"?
-
Sounds like you are in my camp, but what would you use to prove it. And should we reword 10-2-3 to mean "all PSK and post COP fouls" rather than just "all PSK fouls"?
'Bout time you came around AB....but call the "non-PSK" fouls "post-possession fouls" yEs:
-
'Bout time you came around AB....but call the "non-PSK" fouls "post-possession fouls" yEs:
I didn't "come around", I've been there all the time. But I thought Bwest brought up a good point: if "post scrimmage kick" fouls means those specific fouls with PSK enforcement, then 10-2-3 can't apply and everything offsets.
But I don't think that what the rule means. I think "post scrimmage kick fouls" include all those fouls that came after the kick, which would include those after the COP.
-
I didn't "come around", I've been there all the time. But I thought Bwest brought up a good point: if "post scrimmage kick" fouls means those specific fouls with PSK enforcement, then 10-2-3 can't apply and everything offsets.
But I don't think that what the rule means. I think "post scrimmage kick fouls" include all those fouls that came after the kick, which would include those after the COP.
To muddy things up a bit: I originally came up with this question after reading through the NCAA rules. I know this isn't the NCAA forum, but it is my understanding that the PSK rules in the Fed were derived from the NCAA rules.
The NCAA rule is the following:
Offsetting Fouls
ARTICLE 4. If live-ball fouls by both teams are reported to the referee, the
fouls offset and the down is repeated (A.R. 10-1-4-I and VIII). Any player who
commits a foul that mandates disqualification must leave the game.
Exceptions:
1. When there is a change of team possession during a down, and the team
last gaining possession had not fouled before last gaining possession,
it may refuse offsetting fouls and thereby retain possession after
completion of the penalty for its foul (A.R. 10-1-4-II-VII).
2. When all Team B fouls are governed by postscrimmage kick rules,
Team B may refuse offsetting fouls and accept postscrimmage kick
enforcement.
3. Rules 8-3-4-c and 3-1-3-g-3 (during a try or extra period after Team B
possession).
With that wording it seems even MORE clear that the fouls should offset. Unfortunately, I have not been able to find an interpretation there either.
-
IMHO.....
NFHS PSK was NOT copied verbatim from NCAA - Rarely will anything be copied verbatim from NCAA
(see NFHS POed @ NCAA per 1948 in another topic).
True PSK (2-16-2h4) occurs before end of kick.
It appears both codes allow R to keep the ball by declining K's foul, if R's foul(s) were under PSK or after COP.
It appears that the Braves knocked the Sox around yesterday - AB, glad it was just for fun :).
In theory, the "clean hands" concept would apply to both R fouls as PSK implies that R has got the ball with clean hands.
-
It appears both codes allow R to keep the ball by declining K's foul, if R's foul(s) were under PSK or after COP.
I theory, I agree, but where does it say that?
-
I theory, I agree, but where does it say that?
Agree that the wording is not clear as to "post scrimmage kick" is referring to "PSK" or stuff happening after kick is fielded.
In 1970, the "clean hands policy" for double fouls during a down in which change of possession occurs was adopted.
In 2003, the "PSK" enforcement provided that a change of possession had occurred when the ball was kicked.
In 2015, the OP presented a play where 2 fouls on R occurred that fell under the above mentioned "clean hands policy" .
Your Honor, I rest my case........... tiphat:
-
In 2003, the "PSK" enforcement provided that a change of possession had occurred when the ball was kicked.
No, no, a thousand times no!
Change of possession doesn't change until R possesses the ball. However, there is a "special enforcement" of fouls that occur between the snap (which is before the ball is kicked) and the time the kick ends, given other criteria that must happen as well.
That's a far cry from "possession changes when the ball is kicked". Even the NCAA and NFL, which take an even more liberal attitude on this, don't consider it to have "changed" until the kick crosses the LOS, not from the time it was kicked. If possession changed at the time the ball was kicked, then a blocked punt (that never crossed the LOS) picked up by K would be a first down for K without them having to reach the LTG, and that's certainly not true or desired.
To clean things up, 10-2-3 should be edited to read:
If each team fouls during a down in which there is a change of possession and all R fouls are post-scrimmage kick fouls or occur after the kick ends, then R may retain the ball ......
We don't need a rule change, just an editorial change.
-
Sometimes , like the NFHS Rules Book, I don't talk/write/think clearly ??? :o ??? ::). I shoulda' said : "Under PSK, the 'clean hands policy' would apply". Your editorial change would certainly clarify, please remind me next Fall and I'll submit it as such.
Sometimes, on vague situations such as this, common sense could prevail.....The rationale of the "Clean hands policy" is that you got possession of the ball without fouling and shouldn't have to give it up (Fundamental I-6 :No foul causes loss of the ball). Both of R's fouls in the OP would qualify via clean hands so R could keep the ball by declining K's foul.
We shouldn't be too quick in assuming that R will want to keep the ball in the OP as the result would be equivalent to a 55 yard punt - a boomer for most HS kickers. Coaches (& those that like to play coach), what would your (R's ) choice be ??? ??? ????
-
I think the difference in terminology is irrelevant in this case most likely. In this particular case, you had a 45 yard punt, with a possible PSK enforcement. This moves the ball half the distance to the goal line or the 10 yard line. I don't know of many coaches that will want to decline the illegal formation and take the ball that deep on their side of the field. I would guess, the penalty would be accepted, thus setting up a double foul situation and the down would get replayed.
-
Agreed, CEngel, the OP had it 4th & 10 so replaying the down would, IMHO, be R's best choice. I can't ever recall B choosing to offset the penalties on COP via fumble recovery or interception, however.
-
There are some circumstances where I could see declining K's foul and taking the ball at the 10. Suppose there was less than a minute in the game,and as R, I'm down by 2. If R were tackled inbounds, isn't the clock going to start on the RFP if we replay the down? In that case, K can run off another 25 seconds. If I'm R's coach with a good offense, the time may be more important than the yards.
But regardless of whether I would accept or decline IN THIS CASE, the wording of the rule needs tweaking to assure the choices that we think exist for R actually do. The "clean hands" philosophy says R should get their choice, logic leads us to that conclusion, but it isn't actually what the rule says at this point, as BWest as pointed out.
-
Good point,AB, on the timing situation. A scrimmage kick had been made but a new series hadn't been established, so crank 'er on RFP. A situation where B would want to offset the penalties and replay the down on a COP could occur on an interception/fumble recovery where B fouls in their own end zone after COP. Replaying the down would probably be more attractive than giving up a safety and free kicking.
That's all my knowledge for now, have a good weekend, everyone/y'all....enjoy March Madness (I was 12-4 yesterday, with Duke to win it all), while I enjoy watching the snow melt. :)