Postscrimmage Kick Enforcement on an unsuccessful field goal attempt

[ajv]

I was reviewing Rom Gilbert quizes from 2015 for our rules discussion group and came across an interesting play from week 11.

4th & 8 on the B-28. A6's field goal attempt is wide left. Team A is in an illegal formation. B87 commits a personal foul against A82 on B-22 during the kick.

This is an interesting question that turns out to be PSK enforcement with B declining offsetting fouls according to Rom.

However, as you always do, you push the original scenario to see what happens. Remembering that after the 2013 change we no longer have the 3-yard beyond the neutral zone requirement:

4th & 8 on the B-28. A6's field goal attempt is wide left. Team A is in an illegal formation. B87 crashes into the holder immediately after the kick is made.

I think this new scenario is probably offsetting fouls and replay 4th down. Roughing the kicker/holder has "previous spot" enforcement. Does that mean that the roughing foul cannot participate in PSK enforcement even though 10-2-3b explicitly states enforcement being according to 3-and-1?

[cperezprg]

"For many fouls, the enforcement spot is specified in the statement of the penalty. When the enforcement spot is not specified in the statement of the penalty, the enforcement spot is determined by the Three-and-One Principle (Rules 2-33 and 10-2-2-c)"

[#92]

"For many fouls, the enforcement spot is specified in the statement of the penalty. When the enforcement spot is not specified in the statement of the penalty, the enforcement spot is determined by the Three-and-One Principle (Rules 2-33 and 10-2-2-c)"

Then again, Rule 10-2-3 reads "If these conditions are all met, the penalty is enforced according to the Three-And-One Principle. Team B is taken as the team in possession with the postscrimmage kick spot as the basic spot (Rule 10-2-2-c)."

So maybe that overrules the enforcement spot specified in the statement of the penalty?

Although I would think for "roughing", the "automatic 1st down" aspect, plays and gives the ball to Team A anyway? And with "running into", we go to Three-And-One?

I'm just guessing here...

[NVFOA_Ump]

RULE 2 - SECTION 33. Three-and-One Principle (Page FR-42)
The Three-and-One Principle of penalty enforcement applies when the penalty statement for a foul does not specify the enforcement spot. Application of this principle is described in Rule 10-2-2-c.

This is pretty clear I believe, we don't get to using the 3-and-1 principle if there is an enforcement spot identified in the penalty statement.  No need to guess.

[bossman72]

(Original play) By letter of the law this is PSK, however by philosophy this needs to be previous spot.

Basically what the PSK rule is trying to do is say: "If the foul happens as part of the rush, make it previous spot.  If the foul happens as part of the kick coverage, make it PSK." 

It's hard to write that in a rulebook, which is why we get those weird scenarios that seem like PSK but aren't by letter of the law, and vice versa.  By philosophy, make it what it's supposed to be.