Enforcement: Foul by each team with ILT

[ljudge]

I saw a well-written online test question today involving fouls by both teams, ILT, and a score.  They say crazy things can happen on kick plays and might be an interesting conversation on the field.

4/10 @ B-40. A3’s long FG attempt is short. A40 touches the grounded kick at the B-6, and then B99 intentionally bats the ball forward at the B-2. A97 picks up the ball at the B-14 and carries it across the goal line. During A97’s run, A80 is flagged for holding at the B-12.

[ElvisLives]

Firstly, the status of the ball is still a legal scrimmage kick, and the ball is loose from the kick and beyond the NZ. Secondly, as such, the ball is dead when it is recovered by A97. So, all we have to deal with is the illegal batting foul by B99. (A80's dead-ball holding foul is ignored, since it is neither a personal foul nor an unsportsmanlike conduct foul.) If Team A declines the penalty for the Illegal Batting, then Team B will get the ball at the spot of the Illegal Touching (B-6). So, they will obviously accept the penalty.
B99's batting of the ball means that the ball was touched by Team B beyond the NZ, which is governed by 8-4-2-b-2. The illegal batting foul qualifies for Post-Scrimmage Kick Enforcement, so the Basic Spot for the penalty is the end of the kick (B-14). The Spot of the Foul (B-2) is behind the Basic Spot, so the penalty will be enforced 1/2 the distance to the goal from the Spot of the Foul, taking the ball to the B-1, where Team B is awarded a scrimmage series, and will next snap the ball.
B, 1/10, B-1, snap (25).

During our next crew meeting, we would discuss making certain that we know the status of the ball before dropping a foul marker for a non-personal foul or non-unsportsmanlike conduct foul. Process the action, then determine if the flag is warranted or not.

[bossman72]

Firstly, the status of the ball is still a legal scrimmage kick, and the ball is loose from the kick and beyond the NZ. Secondly, as such, the ball is dead when it is recovered by A97. So, all we have to deal with is the illegal batting foul by B99. (A80's dead-ball holding foul is ignored, since it is neither a personal foul nor an unsportsmanlike conduct foul.) If Team A declines the penalty for the Illegal Batting, then Team B will get the ball at the spot of the Illegal Touching (B-6). So, they will obviously accept the penalty.
B99's batting of the ball means that the ball was touched by Team B beyond the NZ, which is governed by 8-4-2-b-2. The illegal batting foul qualifies for Post-Scrimmage Kick Enforcement, so the Basic Spot for the penalty is the end of the kick (B-14). The Spot of the Foul (B-2) is behind the Basic Spot, so the penalty will be enforced 1/2 the distance to the goal from the Spot of the Foul, taking the ball to the B-1, where Team B is awarded a scrimmage series, and will next snap the ball.
B, 1/10, B-1, snap (25).

During our next crew meeting, we would discuss making certain that we know the status of the ball before dropping a foul marker for a non-personal foul or non-unsportsmanlike conduct foul. Process the action, then determine if the flag is warranted or not.

I don't have this as PSK since B will not be next to snap the ball.  A97 is in legal possession at the end of the down.  Batting enforced previous spot.  A 1/10 @ B30

[ljudge]

I don't have this as PSK since B will not be next to snap the ball.  A97 is in legal possession at the end of the down.  Batting enforced previous spot.  A 1/10 @ B30

TBH I struggled with the question.  A 1/10 at B30 was identified to be the correct answer for the test question.  Elvis nailed it on the ball becoming dead when A possessed so everything after that doesn't apply and since A in legal possession you cannot have PSK. 

[ElvisLives]

I stand corrected. I need to remember that “next snap the ball” means as the natural result of the down, not after enforcement of any penalty.
So, yes, since PSK doesn’t apply, the Basic Spot is the Previous Spot, and the actual enforcement spot, with team A retaining the ball. The distance penalty results in a new series for Team A. Because of the legal kick down, the game clock starts on the snap, play clock is 25 following the penalty completion.
A, 1/10, B-30, snap (25).
Yeah, good discussion.

[Covid 22]

Doesn't 1st touching by the kicking team on a scrimmage kick factor into the answer to this play?

[dammitbobby]

No, because the illegal touching spot becomes irrelevant once a foul is accepted.

[Covid 22]

Thanks, but wouldn't the announcement start with "1st touching by the kicking team is ignored by the acceptance of the batting penalty/"  Seems like that might save a conference with the coach.

[dammitbobby]

It could, sure, but that seems like it may be a little more complex than necessary, since announcements are primarily for the announcers and crowd (coaches should already have been informed of what happened, what the offended coach's options are, (and why, if necessary, which is where explaining that by rule, illegal touching goes away when a penalty is accepted would be useful) and what the offended coach selected.)

Just my .02

[ElvisLives]

Thanks, but wouldn't the announcement start with "1st touching by the kicking team is ignored by the acceptance of the batting penalty/"  Seems like that might save a conference with the coach.

That is why we should expect all officials to be expert in all facets of the rules, including penalty enforcement. When they are, our wing officials, then, can give any explanation needed to the teams, without requiring the R to offer any explanation to the coaches. If a coach insists on talking to the referee, there is a process for that, with the most likely result being a charged team time out to that team. If the wing official reminds the head coach of this process (while simultaneously keeping the coaches off the field), then the coach has to decide if he knows more than us to achieve a favorable outcome, or, if the result will be a time out. His decision to make. No. He does not have a carte-blanche right to speak to the referee any time he chooses.
Now, if during an extended break in the action (like following a try, etc.), a coach respectfully requests to speak with the referee, after the wing has done everything he can to answer his questions, a good R will hustle over TO THE SIDELINE (never have these conversations on the field of play - make him follow you to the sideline, when necessary), and quickly explain things to him. If he can’t offer some compelling argument that a rule has been misapplied, and starts to argue, simply tell him calmly that the ruling is what it is. You have given him the explanation; you’re sorry if he doesn’t like the explanation, but you can’t help him. Then turn and hustle back to your position. When he insists on an official Referee’s conference, do the same thing, but charge him with a Team Time Out when you terminate the conference.

[Kalle]

Thanks, but wouldn't the announcement start with "1st touching by the kicking team is ignored by the acceptance of the batting penalty/"  Seems like that might save a conference with the coach.

Minor nitpick: NCAA: illegal touching, NFHS: first touching. Remember your code on the field

[ElvisLives]

Minor nitpick: NCAA: illegal touching, NFHS: first touching. Remember your code on the field

I’m glad you made this point. I was considering it, but chose to be a coward on that. 🙂