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.
Yes, we've had this conversation before, and I agree it's not an ideal rule. However, it's the rule as written. As I've read on here several times, and have practiced for years, it's not our job to apply them the way we like them. It's our job to apply them as written. As written, this rule says you can't enforce a penalty from a spot of first touching. If you want to lobby the rules committee to change that, then by all means, do so. But if you are dedicated to applying the rules as written, then you have to apply this one as well. "Any foul during the down" means exactly that, including nonplayer fouls, as suggested and supported by Redding, and any caseplay that has ever been published since they first began publishing case books.
Philosophically speaking, you can't have multiple "succeeding spots" on any one play. the first touching spot (or spots), while potential succeeding spots, are not actual succeeding spots until a decision is made by the offended team. In order for the offended team to make that decision, the actual succeeding spot comes into play, which is the spot where the ball would be snapped had there been no foul.
Consider these two scenarios with multiple spots of first touching:
#1. Normal live ball foul (holding, etc.) "Coach, we've got first touching and a foul by them. We can't mark off a penalty from these first touching spots, because it's a foul that happened during the down. So, you can go to the spot of first touching and take the ball there, or, you can take the ball at the succeeding spot (result of the play.), or we can go to the flag, or the previous spot, whatever, and mark the penalty off from there." Coach is like, "Can't i use the spot of first touching as the spot of enforcement?" "No, by rule, the spot of first touching goes away if you accept the foul. So you have to decide, do you want the foul, the result of the play? or the spot of first touching.
#2. Nonplayer foul: Coach, we've got first touching and a foul by them. Normally, we can't mark off a penalty from these first touching spots, because it's a foul that happened during the down. But, because this is a nonplayer foul carrying succeeding spot enforcement, all of a sudden, we can use any of these first touching spots as succeeding spots. So, just pick one. Do you want the actual succeeding spot, which is the result of the play? Or do you want to pick one of these first touching spots and turn it into the succeeding spot and enforce the penalty from there? If one of these first touching spots are better than the actual succeeding spot, you can "have your cake and eat it too."
