Author Topic: Punt Play Situation  (Read 911 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1963
  • FAN REACTION: +43/-46
Punt Play Situation
« on: January 14, 2021, 09:40:06 AM »
A4/5@B-40. A1 punts the ball and B22 calls for a fair catch. While the kick is in the air A88 reaches across B’s goal line and bats the punt back to the field of play. in an attempt to recover the ball B44 ends up kicking the ball at the B4 and A80 jumps on it at the B10. B22 (who had signaled for a fair catch), blocked A80 in the back at the B15 prior to A88’s bat.

Online Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • FAN REACTION: +48/-9
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #1 on: January 14, 2021, 09:50:31 AM »
When you say B44 “kicks” the ball, do you mean he kicked it by definition, or do you mean he muffed it with his foot “in an attempt  to recover the ball”?

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3092
  • FAN REACTION: +105/-34
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #2 on: January 14, 2021, 10:13:54 AM »
As LZ said, there are two alternatives, depending on the judgement on the action of B44.

1) B44 kicks the ball. There are two fouls by team B and one violation by team A. The foul for illegally kicking the ball is enforced from the basic spot, which is the previous spot, as PSK conditions do not fully apply (team A is in legal possession at the end of the down). The foul for blocking after a fair catch signal is a spot foulPSK foul. Team A will decline the blocking penalty and accept the illegally kicking penalty. The violation "disappears" as a penalty is accepted. Team A 1/10 @ B-30.

2) B44 unintentionally hits the ball with his leg while attempting to recover. Now we only have a spot foulPSK foul, so team A will accept the penalty on that. Team B 1/10 @ B-7.5B-5.

Edit: Fixed a blatant error in the enforcement spot for the illegal block penalty
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 10:27:59 AM by Kalle »

Offline SA_Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • FAN REACTION: +0/-0
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #3 on: January 14, 2021, 10:18:27 AM »
The kick by B44 was not intentional.

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1963
  • FAN REACTION: +43/-46
Punt Play Situation
« Reply #4 on: January 14, 2021, 10:26:39 AM »
As LZ said, there are two alternatives, depending on the judgement on the action of B44.

1) B44 kicks the ball. There are two fouls by team B and one violation by team A. The foul for illegally kicking the ball is enforced from the basic spot, which is the previous spot, as PSK conditions do not fully apply (team A is in legal possession at the end of the down). The foul for blocking after a fair catch signal is a spot foul. Team A will decline the blocking penalty and accept the illegally kicking penalty. The violation "disappears" as a penalty is accepted. Team A 1/10 @ B-30.

2) B44 unintentionally hits the ball with his leg while attempting to recover. Now we only have a spot foul, so team A will accept the penalty on that. Team B 1/10 @ B-7.5.
Kal, what about the penalty enforcement of illegal blocking by a FC caller. PSK then 3 and 1?

Illegal Block or Contact
ARTICLE 4. A player of Team B who has made a valid or invalid signal for a fair catch and does not touch the ball shall not block or foul an opponent during that down (A.R. 6-5-4-I and II).
PENALTY—Free kick: Receiving team’s ball 15 yards from the spot of the foul [S40]. Scrimmage kick: 15 yards, postscrimmage kick enforcement


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Online Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • FAN REACTION: +48/-9
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #5 on: January 14, 2021, 10:28:55 AM »
Exactly where I was going Kalle. But just to be clear, the illegal block is not a spot foul. It is a foul with PSK enforcement by definition since this is a scrimmage kick. In this case it will be enforced from the spot of the foul since the foul occurs at the B-15 and the PSK spot is the B-20. Even though the kick ended at the B-10, that is not the PSK spot in this instance because 6-3-11 is in effect for Team A batting the ball from the end zone.

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3092
  • FAN REACTION: +105/-34
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #6 on: January 14, 2021, 10:29:31 AM »
Kal, what about the penalty enforcement of illegal blocking by a FC caller. PSK then 3 and 1?

Yeah, I goofed on that, see my modification in the original reply. The enforcement is from the PSK spot, like you said, which is the end of the kick ie. B-10 resulting in B 1/10 @ B-5 in the second case.

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3092
  • FAN REACTION: +105/-34
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #7 on: January 14, 2021, 10:32:48 AM »
Exactly where I was going Kalle. But just to be clear, the illegal block is not a spot foul. It is a foul with PSK enforcement by definition since this is a scrimmage kick. In this case it will be enforced from the spot of the foul since the foul occurs at the B-15 and the PSK spot is the B-20. Even though the kick ended at the B-10, that is not the PSK spot in this instance because 6-3-11 is in effect for Team A batting the ball from the end zone.

I even read 2-27-11 and still did not see this. Grrrr.

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1963
  • FAN REACTION: +43/-46
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #8 on: January 14, 2021, 12:31:38 PM »
How does the fact that the illegal touch is wiped out with acceptance of a foul mean anything here?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 14, 2021, 02:24:28 PM by TxSkyBolt »

Online Legacy Zebra

  • *
  • Posts: 779
  • FAN REACTION: +48/-9
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #9 on: January 14, 2021, 02:33:19 PM »
The illegal touching privilege goes away, but 6-3-11 is still in effect so the PSK spot is still the B-20. If 6-3-11 wasn’t in effect, you’d have to charge Team A with illegal batting. Obviously we’re not going to do that. You can see an example of this principle in AR 6-3-11-IV.

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1963
  • FAN REACTION: +43/-46
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #10 on: January 15, 2021, 06:15:23 AM »
Isn’t A in legal possession of the ball at the end of the play and wouldn’t they be next to put the ball in play? Doesn’t PSK require B to next put the ball in play? Some I’ve spoken with say this is a PS enforcement because it doesn’t meet the PSK requirements.

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3092
  • FAN REACTION: +105/-34
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #11 on: January 15, 2021, 07:46:30 AM »
Isn’t A in legal possession of the ball at the end of the play and wouldn’t they be next to put the ball in play? Doesn’t PSK require B to next put the ball in play? Some I’ve spoken with say this is a PS enforcement because it doesn’t meet the PSK requirements.

Hmmmmmm. I went and looked at the relevant rule language from the time when the penalties actually said "basic spot" if they were to be enforced from basic spot, and interestingly the illegal block penalty statement used to say "PSK or basic spot." So, I think there may have been a (inadvertent?) rule change on this, as before this would have been a basic spot foul as not all PSK requirements are met. Alternatively, the current penalty statement should be read to imply that the PSK part really means "PSK, or BS if PSK does not apply."

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1754
  • FAN REACTION: +138/-24
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #12 on: January 15, 2021, 08:36:22 AM »
I know the rule specifically says PSK enforcement, but it doesn't make sense in this context.

Why would the rules makers want to penalize this act (illegal block after a fair catch) different than a block in the back or illegal blindside block?

I say enforce it from the previous spot as you would any other foul on B in this situation.  The qualifications of PSK have not been met since Team A has the ball.

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3092
  • FAN REACTION: +105/-34
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #13 on: January 15, 2021, 09:24:54 AM »
I know the rule specifically says PSK enforcement, but it doesn't make sense in this context.

Why would the rules makers want to penalize this act (illegal block after a fair catch) different than a block in the back or illegal blindside block?

I agree that it is weird, but why couldn't the rule simply say to enforce from the basic spot, if that is what the rules makers really want?

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 1944
  • FAN REACTION: +114/-85
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #14 on: January 15, 2021, 03:44:56 PM »
Post deleted by author. I stand corrected.
 
« Last Edit: January 15, 2021, 10:27:31 PM by ElvisLives »

Offline TxSkyBolt

  • *
  • Posts: 1963
  • FAN REACTION: +43/-46
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #15 on: January 15, 2021, 09:32:12 PM »
Team A may be in temporary legal possession of the ball at the end of the down, but Team B will, in fact, next snap the ball, in any case. If the penalty is accepted, it would, indeed, be penalized as any other PSK foul - by 3 & 1 from the end of the kick, and Team B will next snap the ball (more on that in a moment). If the penalty is declined (not gonna happen), Team B would invoke the illegal touching privilege, and next snap the ball at the B-20. So, all PSK requirements are met, and Team A isn't gonna get the ball under any circumstance. End of story.

Now, let's talk about the end of the kick and the PSK spot. I will grant you that it might seem logical that if the penalty is accepted, the illegal touching privilege is canceled, so the end of the kick should be the 'natural' end of the kick, not the artificial EOK (B-20). But, with the AR we have, this is clearly not the case. There was a time when batting of a kick by A in B's end zone was a distance penalty foul (15 yards, enforced at the previous spot back then). At some point, the Rules Committee decided that this was too much penalty, and just changed it to result in a touchback. So, by the AR, even if the penalty for a B foul is accepted, but there was an illegal batting in B's end zone by A, they are telling us that the result of the illegal batting is still, in effect, a touchback, and the artificial end of the kick (PSK spot) is the B-20.

Elvis,

This AR is almost identical except for the type of foul and specifically says PSK is not applicable.

Team A snaps at the 50-yard line and punts. The kick is untouched beyond the neutral zone when A88 reaches across Team B’s goal line and bats the ball back into the field of play. B22 muffs the ball at the B-2 and A43 recovers it at the B-6. While the ball is loose B77 holds A21 at the B-10. RULING: Team A may cancel the illegal touching privilege by accepting the holding penalty, which is enforced at the previous spot with the down replayed. Postscrimmage kick rules do not apply to B77’s foul since Team B will not next put the ball in play (Rule 10-2-3).


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
« Last Edit: January 15, 2021, 09:54:11 PM by TxSkyBolt »

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1754
  • FAN REACTION: +138/-24
Re: Punt Play Situation
« Reply #16 on: January 16, 2021, 03:31:49 PM »
I agree that it is weird, but why couldn't the rule simply say to enforce from the basic spot, if that is what the rules makers really want?

It's just an oversight. They try to get too specific in the NCAA book and it leads to plays like this.  Other examples:

1) Illegal forward passes being loss of down.  At some point in time they decided to add "..if by Team A prior to a COP" to the penalty.  Why?  I don't know.  It absolutely is not needed if you know the definition of loss of down.  What this did was create a situation where Team B is returning the ball and throws an illegal forward pass at the A1 into the endzone for a TD as time expires.  Should be loss of down and period over.  However if you read this penalty literally, you would let them repeat the down and go kick the game winning field goal.  It took Rogers an "interpretation" to make that a loss of down too.

2) Team A gets their punt blocked.  A1 kicks the ball at his own A2 yard line down field and it goes out of bounds at the A40.  Now people take 6-3-13 too literally and think that trumps everything else.  So instead of enforcing half the distance to the A1 and loss of down making it B 1/G @ A1, some people think we have to go to the previous spot to enforce this foul because 6-3-13 says so, which makes zero sense.  6-3-13 is basically trying to say "you can enforce the foul like you always do normally, or you can tack it on to the end of the kick".  It's not meant to alter the normal enforcement spot of a foul.  Illegally kicking the ball is 3 and 1 enforcement and 6-3-13 is not meant to alter that.

This is why writing rules is hard.