Possible Rule Conflict When Kickoff Results in Touchback

[Boodle]

A question arose during our association meeting about how to enforce a low block on R when the free kick results in a touchback.

Rule 10-4 covers basic spots
ART. 2 . . . The basic spot is the previous spot:
a. For a foul which occurs simultaneously with the snap or free kick.
b. For a foul which occurs during a loose ball play, as defined in 10-3-1. See
10-5-5 for special enforcement on roughing the passer.
c. For a foul which occurs during a down in which a legal kick occurs and an
inadvertent whistle ends the down prior to possession by either team.

However, Rule 10-4-5d seems to conflict with enforcement from the previous spot

ART. 5 . . . The basic spot is the succeeding spot:
a. For an unsportsmanlike foul.
b. For a dead-ball foul.
c. For a nonplayer foul.
d. When the final result is a touchback.

The general consensus at the meeting was that the touchback case in 10-4-5d applies to interceptiosn and fumbles and not free kicks.  However, there is nothing in the rule stating that.

I have not found any case play covering this scenario.

For a free kick which resutls in a touchback, does Rule 10-4-5d trump Rule 10-4-2b?

[maven]

Good question. For some fouls, article 5 trumps. For UNS and nonplayer fouls during the down (loose ball or running play), you'd enforce from the succeeding spot. It's tempting to generalize and enforce this IBW from the succeeding spot on that basis.

I see no basis in the rules for distinguishing interceptions and fumbles from free kicks.

[srhendon]

I don't have book with me but if you enforce it as a TB that would be a PSK spot and PSK doesn't apply on a free kick if I remember right.

[bama_stripes]

I believe 5d was added awhile back to cover your exact scenario.

[Curious]

Take a look at 2012 Case Book Play 8.5.3B,b

I agree there is some ambiguity/contradiction as you point out; but, if you substitute R's BIB in your play with R's illegal kick in the Case Book play, it is apparent that the folks in Indianapolis want the previous spot enforcement for R's foul to trump the succeeding spot for the "final result"/touchback.

[Bob M.]

REPLY: When 10-4-5d was added to the Fed rules back in 1996, the sole intent was to apply that rule to running plays. The case play included at that time was one where B intercepted a pass in his end zone and was pulled down there by the face mask. Prior to 1996, enforcement was from B's goal line. This changed it so that enforcement would be from B's 20. But they've never clarified that it does not apply to loose ball plays. According to the way the rule is written, illegal motion on the kicking team should be enforced from B's 20 too.

[cbrunnjo]

Just to clarify.....

We would enforce this from the previous spot because it is a loose ball play.. Correct

[Curious]

Just to clarify.....

We would enforce this from the previous spot because it is a loose ball play.. Correct

Take a look at 2012 Case Book Play 8.5.3B,b; if you substitute R's BIB in your play with R's illegal kick in the Case Book play, it is apparent that the folks in Indianapolis want the previous spot enforcement for R's foul to trump the succeeding spot for the "final result"/touchback.

Yup!  That's my story and I'm sticking to it.........