Am I missing something? Or did the NCAA miss something?

[Legacy Zebra]

This last year the NCAA removed the restriction that a foul had to occur more than three yards beyond the neutral zone to fall under PSK, right? So why does AR 10-2-3-II say that "If the foul occurs behind or fewer than three yards beyond the neutral zone, Team A retains the ball after the penalty is enforced from the previous spot." The AR involves a punt that crosses the neutral zone and a Team B foul during the kick, so assuming Team B will next put the ball in play this should qualify for PSK. Should this AR have been changed? Or is there something I'm missing?

[jg-me]

Certainly appears to be NCAA's goof.

[NVFOA_Ump]

..... Or is there something I'm missing?

Aren't we overlooking something by extracting just a single phrase out of context?

AR 10-2-3-II Team A’s punt is blocked, crosses the neutral zone and is untouched by Team B beyond the neutral zone. It rebounds behind the neutral zone before clipping or holding by Team B occurs. The ball is loose at the time of the foul.

RULING: If the holding or clipping occurs more than three yards beyond the neutral zone and Team B has possession when the down ends, enforcement is according to postscrimmage kick rules.  Team B will have the ball, first down and 10. If the foul occurs behind or fewer than three yards beyond the neutral zone, Team A retains the ball after the penalty is enforced from the previous spot.

[Legacy Zebra]

What was taken out if context? It was a scrimmage kick, the ball crossed the neutral zone, Team B fouled before the kick ended. The AR doesn't say which team recovers. If A recovers it obviously doesn't matter, PSK doesn't apply and the penalty is enforced at the previous spot. But if B recovers, the AR says A gets to keep the ball if the foul is within three yards of or behind the neutral zone. That's not right though because PSK should apply since all 4 criteria were met.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Doesn't the AR state that the ball is untouched beyond the NZ, bounces back behind the NZ, and while still loose BEHIND THE NZ the foul occurs behind the NZ?  The way I read the AR in this specific case as written, I have no problem with the ruling.

I see a play with B clipping behind the NZ during a loose ball play while there is a loose ball behind NZ.  You would be enforcing that as a PSK foul?

[Legacy Zebra]

The AR says it crosses the neutral zone and then "rebounds" back behind the neutral zone. If it rebounded that means it hit something beyond the neutral zone which means the kick is deemed to have crossed the neutral zone. After that, it doesn't matter where it goes. And the ruling from the AR assumes that it crosses the neutral zone when it says B can keep the ball if the foul is downfield. If it never crossed the neutral zone, Team B wouldn't be able to keep the ball as any foul during the kick would be enforced from the previous spot with A keeping the ball. The fact is, no matter what happens, the location of B's foul does not change who keeps the ball.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I don't disagree with the pretty clear wording of the most recent PSK changes, but am simply reading the AR as written and using the guideline that the actual ruling(s) in the AR apply only to the specific circumstances as described in the AR.  Would it be more correct if the case play were covered by exception language in the rules vs. an AR? I would agree yes, and maybe that should be done, or alternately revise the AR depending on the rulesmakers intent?