First Touching Question

[sczeebra]

Under the terms which the right of R to take the ball at the spot of FT says, that if the penalty is accepted for ANY foul committed during the down they loose that right. I take this to mean ANY, including a non-player foul with succeeding spot enforcement. What do y'all think?

[bama_stripes]

Well, nonplayer fouls are penalized as dead ball fouls, even if they happen during live ball action, so I’d say R retains their FT options.

PLAY: K21 first touches a punt which R17 than muffs. K recovers.
During the play, the LJ makes contact with a K coach in the restricted area.

RULING: ??

[Ralph Damren]

Non-player fouls are treated as dead ball fouls reasoning that they had no baring (except IP) on the play even if they occur during a live ball.

[CalhounLJ]

The spot of first touching is NEVER a spot of enforcement. The only time that particular place on the field becomes a spot of enforcement is after the down is over, and everything associated with that down, has been taken care of. At that point, that spot can become a succeeding spot. Then, if there's a foul after that, it can be marked off from that succeeding spot. In the case of the live-ball-treated-as-a-dead ball, while it carries a succeeding spot enforcement, it's still part of the continuity of the down in which it happened. Therefore, you can't use the spot of first touching if the penalty is accepted. You would have to go to the succeeding spot, which IS THE SPOT WHERE THE BALL WOULD BE PUT INTO PLAY HAD THERE BEEN NO FOUL.

Now, you can argue that if there had been no foul, the ball would have (technically could have) been put into play at the spot of first touching, and this is true. However, doing so would put you in violation of the "right of first touching by R goes away if the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the play." There is no exception to that fundamental. It doesn't say, "unless there is a live ball foul treated as a dead ball foul. In that case you can use the spot of first touching."

[sczeebra]

The spot of first touching is NEVER a spot of enforcement. The only time that particular place on the field becomes a spot of enforcement is after the down is over, and everything associated with that down, has been taken care of. At that point, that spot can become a succeeding spot. Then, if there's a foul after that, it can be marked off from that succeeding spot. In the case of the live-ball-treated-as-a-dead ball, while it carries a succeeding spot enforcement, it's still part of the continuity of the down in which it happened. Therefore, you can't use the spot of first touching if the penalty is accepted. You would have to go to the succeeding spot, which IS THE SPOT WHERE THE BALL WOULD BE PUT INTO PLAY HAD THERE BEEN NO FOUL.

Now, you can argue that if there had been no foul, the ball would have (technically could have) been put into play at the spot of first touching, and this is true. However, doing so would put you in violation of the "right of first touching by R goes away if the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the play." There is no exception to that fundamental. It doesn't say, "unless there is a live ball foul treated as a dead ball foul. In that case you can use the spot of first touching."

You've just spun my head around and I'm totally confused. What would you do with this. K commits first touching at the 50, R gains possession and fumbles where K lands on it and downed at K'40. R's coach is flagged for contact in the RZ and K accepts the penalty?

[Football101]

I have always just tried to keep this real simple. R - can take the results of the play or they can have it a "First Touching" that's all. 
Also 6.2.5 says

The right of R to take the ball at the spot of First Touching by K is canceled if R touches the kick and there after during the down commits a foul or
If the penalty is accepted for any foul committed during the down

[CalhounLJ]

You've just spun my head around and I'm totally confused. What would you do with this. K commits first touching at the 50, R gains possession and fumbles where K lands on it and downed at K'40. R's coach is flagged for contact in the RZ and K accepts the penalty?

The spot of first touching also goes away if R gains possession and then commits a foul. In that case, it’s Ks ball and we mark off the penalty against R.

[NVFOA_Ump]

The spot of first touching also goes away if R gains possession and then commits a foul. In that case, it’s Ks ball and we mark off the penalty against R.

Isn't this always enforced as a dead ball foul that from an enforcement standpoint occurred AFTER the play was over?

[bama_stripes]

It makes no sense that R would have to decline K’s nonplayer foul in order to retain their first touching choice.

[CalhounLJ]

Isn't this always enforced as a dead ball foul that from an enforcement standpoint occurred AFTER the play was over?

Yes, but it's immaterial to the disintegration of the spot of first touching. Regardless of the fact that the nonplayer foul is enforced as a dead ball foul,  it's a live-ball foul that happened during the down. Because it happened during the down after R touched the ball, the spot of first touching has disintegrated, and we enforce the foul just as if the first touching had not occurred.

[CalhounLJ]

It makes no sense that R would have to decline K’s nonplayer foul in order to retain their first touching choice.

It makes perfect sense to me, simply because the first touching rule says so. Personally, I don't see the difference between a holding and a nonplayer foul here. They are both fouls that happen during the down. How enforcement is handled is immaterial. In either case, R has options. On the hold, they can have the foul enforced from the previous spot, or the succeeding spot, which is where the ball became dead,(provided they end up with it at the end of the down,) or they can take the ball at the spot of first touching by declining the penalty.
Same way on the nonplayer. If they end up with it, they can take the result of the play, tack the unplayer on to it and play on, or they can decline the penalty and take the ball at the spot of first touching. If they don't end up with it, then they can't (and/or won't) tack it on. First of all, because K didn't get it with clean hands, second, because R doesn't want K to have it. So, the most sensible option in that case is to decline the foul and take the spot of first touching.

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO, a holding foul may have an impact on the results of the play, while a non-player foul does not (except IP) even if it occurs during the live-ball. This is the basis of treating such as dead ball succeeding spot enforcement.

IMHO, editorial clarity could/shoud be added to 6-2-5 to illustrate such.

IMHO, the Red Sox will not make post-season.
                                                                   

[CalhounLJ]

IMHO, a holding foul may have an impact on the results of the play, while a non-player foul does not (except IP) even if it occurs during the live-ball. This is the basis of treating such as dead ball succeeding spot enforcement.

IMHO, editorial clarity could/shoud be added to 6-2-5 to illustrate such.

IMHO, the Red Sox will not make post-season.
                                                                   

I have no problem with the concept of one foul influencing the play and the other not. However, that's not the point. The point is they are both "fouls during the down," and as such cause the spot of first touching to go away if the penalty is accepted. According to the plain text of the rule book.

Also, an open challenge to anyone - Go back as far as you would like in previous editions of the rule book, including this year's, and search for any kind of reference, rule or caseplay, that supports the first touching spot as a spot of enforcement. I'll just go ahead and tell ya'll, you won't find one. It's not listed as a basic spot or an enforcement spot, or in this convoluted contraption we call a rule book this year, a basic spot/enforcement spot.
Because it's not.

[CalhounLJ]

Another conflict allowing a nonplayer foul to be enforced from the spot of first touching can be seen by applying the play to the last play in the half. Suppose this play happened at the end of the half. We have a kick touched by K, recovered and then fumbled by R. K recovers. During the down, the official contacts K's coach. Time runs out before the end of the play. R wants the penalty. From where do you enforce it? 3-3-4b says you can't extend the period. Because the 2nd half begins with a kick, you can't use the spot of first touching...

[Ralph Damren]

Yo, Calhoun  . It would be a very boring forum if all agreed on everything . My take on this is that we know if a non-player foul occurs during a live ball, it is treated like a dead ball foul. My interp is that such would be with succeeding spot enforcement, which in the discussed play, would be R's choice of first touching. Is the book clear on "any live ball foul" to include fouls that are to be enforced as dead ball fouls even if they occured while the ball is alive?...NO! IMHO, when there isn't clearity, I lean to what appears most fair. To deny R the option of first touching because K foul is treated as a dead ball foul isn't fair.  I read "R commits a foul or the penalty is Accepted for ANY foul committed during the down" to mean foul by ANY team--granted,  'either' may have been a better word. Another thought is R could decline K's foul and choose first touching.

In your play ending the half, the dead ball foul would be enforced on the ensuing kickoff.

[CalhounLJ]

Yo, Calhoun  . It would be a very boring forum if all agreed on everything . My take on this is that we know if a non-player foul occurs during a live ball, it is treated like a dead ball foul. My interp is that such would be with succeeding spot enforcement, which in the discussed play, would be R's choice of first touching. Is the book clear on "any live ball foul" to include fouls that are to be enforced as dead ball fouls even if they occured while the ball is alive?...NO! IMHO, when there isn't clearity, I lean to what appears most fair. To deny R the option of first touching because K foul is treated as a dead ball foul isn't fair.  I read "R commits a foul or the penalty is Accepted for ANY foul committed during the down" to mean foul by ANY team--granted,  'either' may have been a better word. Another thought is R could decline K's foul and choose first touching.

In your play ending the half, the dead ball foul would be enforced on the ensuing kickoff.

I agree with the concept of agreeing or not. It's a valuable benefit of this forum. I've talked myself out of many wrong positions just by trying to debate what I have always believed. This case is not simple by any means, but I feel like I'm on solid ground. I understand and respect the attempt to be fair and do what is right, but you know how I feel about spots. The definition and concept of spots is vitally important to penalty enforcement, and the clarity of that has been damaged greatly in the past couple of years. This situation is a perfect example of that.
 
While I understand the temptation to do so, we can't take the spot of first touching and turn it into the succeeding spot, for a number of reasons, one of the simplest being it creates confusion and the creation of multiple "succeeding spots." We have the succeeding spot where the ball became dead, the potential "succeeding spot" of first touching, and then, if the penalty happens to be the last play of the half, the succeeding spot of the ensuing kick.
I agree with your ruling on the play I posted. The nonplayer foul, "live-ball treated as dead ball" foul would be enforced on the ensuing kickoff, because that's the true succeeding spot. But, if you do that, you run the risk of doing what ya'll are arguing against on this thread - taking away R's "right" to take the ball at the spot of first touching. The reason we have to take away the spot of first touching in that situation is because a nonplayer foul is purely a succeeding spot foul, and the spot of first touching is not a "succeeding spot." At least, not until after it's chosen. And it can't be chosen in this situation because you can't extend the period on a nonplayer foul. You have to go to the succeeding spot. Which is the ensuing kickoff.

[sczeebra]

Is it possible that the verbiage in 2-16-2g solves the use of the word “any” with regard to first touching? I’m talking about “hereafter referred to as a foul”. If we look at First Touching and PSK parameters this “hereafter referred to” solves any debate. Just a thought!

[CalhounLJ]

Is it possible that the verbiage in 2-16-2g solves the use of the word “any” with regard to first touching? I’m talking about “hereafter referred to as a foul”. If we look at First Touching and PSK parameters this “hereafter referred to” solves any debate. Just a thought!

I feel you, but I think it's best to just not offer the spot of first touching as an enforcement spot instead of trying to change another definition...
We've had way too much of that already.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Not to overstate the repeated ambiguities in the NFHS rules but there are many times, fairly common IMHO, where the first touch, dead ball, and succeeding spot are actually one and the same.  I strongly dislike the repeated language that the first touch spot can NEVER be the spot of enforcement since IMHO that is extremely confusing to newer officials.  We need to do better with our language and description of this so there is no confusion on what we really mean here.  Understanding the poorly worded rule here is not helped by the statement that the first touching spot can NEVER be the spot of enforcement.  We're better than that.

[Football101]

From the Redding study guide

[NVFOA_Ump]

From the Redding study guide

Important to note here that the Redding note is only applicable when a free kick has not traveled 10 yards yet.  On a scrimmage kick when the ball is at rest, sitting still, and untouched by team A, it's already a dead ball.

[CalhounLJ]

From the Redding study guide

This is the proper interpretation...

[bama_stripes]

This is the proper interpretation...

Sorry to be truculent, but I’m having a hard time with the intent here.

PLAY: K attempts an onside kick, but is first to touch the ball at the K-48.  R muffs the kick and K recovers.  K’s coach calls the LJ a MFer (a) after the ball becomes dead, or (b) during the play.

According to this interp, in (a) R will be awarded the ball at the FT spot and K will then be penalized 15 yards, resulting in R 1/10 @ K-33.  In (b), R must decline the USC in order to take the ball at the FT spot, the K-48, even though K has violated and fouled.

That can’t be right.

[ncwingman]

Another conflict allowing a nonplayer foul to be enforced from the spot of first touching can be seen by applying the play to the last play in the half. Suppose this play happened at the end of the half. We have a kick touched by K, recovered and then fumbled by R. K recovers. During the down, the official contacts K's coach. Time runs out before the end of the play. R wants the penalty. From where do you enforce it? 3-3-4b says you can't extend the period. Because the 2nd half begins with a kick, you can't use the spot of first touching...

I'm agreeing with Ralph in this scenario, and it's fairly straightforward. The non-player foul by K will be enforced at the succeeding spot, wherever that is. The debate here is whether the succeeding spot could be a spot of first touching -- however, take the foul of the scenario and R doesn't put the ball in play at the spot of first touching because of the end of the half. The succeeding spot is the 2nd half kickoff with or without the foul. Sure, R will want penalty enforcement and a free play, and I also want a pony.

My second thought on the issue is taking this to an extreme. Let's say K punts, bouncing ball hits a K player, and bounces straight to R56 who advances the ball 5 yards before he's hit and fumbles at the 50. K80 picks up the loose ball and is on the way to score (since it's no longer a kick and can advance it) when Super Savvy Coach K tackles the sideline official. How do you explain to Coach R that K gets the touchdown because their coach intentionally contacted a game official?

Also, didn't we have this same thread last year? This is feeling awfully familiar.

[ncwingman]

Sorry to be truculent, but I’m having a hard time with the intent here.

PLAY: K attempts an onside kick, but is first to touch the ball at the K-48.  R muffs the kick and K recovers.  K’s coach calls the LJ a MFer (a) after the ball becomes dead, or (b) during the play.

According to this interp, in (a) R will be awarded the ball at the FT spot and K will then be penalized 15 yards, resulting in R 1/10 @ K-33.  In (b), R must decline the USC in order to take the ball at the FT spot, the K-48, even though K has violated and fouled.

That can’t be right.

I should read all the posts first... I think we posted the same basic scenario.

The resolution that I have bouncing in my head is that R has the ability to decline any foul to keep the spot of first touching. However, I philosophically disagree that R needs to decline a UNS foul by K. These sorts of fouls should always be enforced, which is why they're "live ball enforced as dead ball" fouls to begin with.

I feel like we'd all be in agreement if the rule was modified to include an "except for non-player or unsportsmanlike foul" provision. Functionally, we determine the outcome of the play based upon the action in the down, including determining the succeeding spot, then we can enforce any dead ball penalties from there. (And again, I agree the rule doesn't say this at the moment, or it's at best very ambiguous, but there'd be little push back if we proposed that change).