Illegal Touching in the EZ

[psv]

PSK refers to Team B fouls.  This is a Team A foul

6-3-13 allows Team A fouls to either be enforced at the previous spot or at the spot where the ball belongs to team B (as long as the ball crosses the NZ).

[Kalle]

6-3-13 allows Team A fouls to either be enforced at the previous spot or at the spot where the ball belongs to team B (as long as the ball crosses the NZ).

Yes, and this is different from PSK, as TXMike said.

[psv]

Yes, and this is different from PSK, as TXMike said.

True in the broad sense. Not in this case.  We have done some fine splitting of hairs here, so allow me 

In order to bat or kick a ball, do you not need to touch it?  Since the answer to that question is Yes, in order to have a bat, kick or bounce, the ball must be touched, we can equate batting to touching in 6-3-11. 

Because of that, the PSK in this case would be the 20 because of rule 6-3-11.  We would then enforce the kicking foul (6-3-13) where the ball belongs to B (this case, the 20).

 

I knew that higher level math classes would come in handy at some point.   

[Kalle]

True in the broad sense. Not in this case.  We have done some fine splitting of hairs here, so allow me 

A wise official used to say: sloppy language leads to sloppy officiating. It is not splitting hairs to say that team A fouls are not PSK fouls. Saying "team A fouls are PSK fouls" is the same as saying "a kick is not a kick if it does not cross the neutral zone" - often true, sometimes horribly false.

In order to bat or kick a ball, do you not need to touch it?  Since the answer to that question is Yes, in order to have a bat, kick or bounce, the ball must be touched, we can equate batting to touching in 6-3-11. 

So, by your logic, any touch (apart from of a legal forward pass) that results in the ball going forwards is an illegal bat? Touching preceds batting, but batting does not automatically follow from a touch. These are two very different concepts in the rules and we cannot equate them. If a rule speaks of batting, it does not apply to other touchings, but if a rule speaks of touching, it does also apply to bats.

[Kalle]

What you can say is "in my opinion rule 6-3-11 should say 'touched' instead of 'batted', and that is what the rules makers intended."

Then again, one purpose of rule 6-3-11 is to make a certain type of batting a violation instead of a foul, so it is possible that other kinds of touches are not assumed to be covered.

[BankerRef]

Just my $0.02 but I think you really only have two options to present to the receiving team.

1)  Decline the foul and enforce the touching violation.  Touchback. B 1&10 B20
2)  Accept the foul enforced at the previous spot and replay.

I personally would not assume to apply the 6-3-11 batting exception to a kicking foul in the end zone. 

However, if you insist on making that assumption then you have no foul to enforce because all you had was a violation based upon your application of the exception.  Basically what I am concluding is there is no way to mark off a kicking foul from the B20.

[James]

I'm fairly sure there are ARs or bulletins from RR that say otherwise - that the enforcement spot can be the 20.

[NVFOA_Ump]

PSK refers to Team B fouls.  This is a Team A foul

Understood and agreed that my analogy was poor but my point is if there was a B penalty with PSK enforcement on a kick with no return where we had an illegal touch in the EZ (ie: a TB), isn't the enforcement going to be from the 20?  What's the difference if we have the same sequence, with the foul on A based on the wording in 10-2-4 ( ..... or at the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to Team B, .... ).  Where would the enforcement spot be if 10-2-4 applies, the goal line?  So independent of my poor analogy, isn't the result the same?

[NVFOA_Ump]

Basically what I am concluding is there is no way to mark off a kicking foul from the B20.

So you are saying that if 10-2-4 applies it would require us to enforce previous spot or the goal line, B's option?  So if B decides to opt for the TB (the result of the IT in the EZ) they effectively have declined any penalties on A?

[Kalle]

So you are saying that if 10-2-4 applies it would require us to enforce previous spot or the goal line, B's option?  So if B decides to opt for the TB (the result of the IT in the EZ) they effectively have declined any penalties on A?

Goal line is not an option as it is not the dead ball spot. Team A fouls before the kick ends can be enforced either from a) the previous spot, b) the spot where the subsequent dead ball belongs to team B, or c) B-20 if there is a bat that qualifies for 6-3-11 exception. In this situation option c) does not apply, as there is no batting in the end zone. Team A fouls can not be enforced from a "generic" spot of illegal touching.

[NVFOA_Ump]

I'm fairly sure there are ARs or bulletins from RR that say otherwise - that the enforcement spot can be the 20.

So here's one:  2007 NCAA Football Play Situations Bulletin No. 2 - September 2007

6. A-87 bats Team A’s previously untouched scrimmage kick in Team B’s end zone and the ball rolls dead on the four yard line. Team A was in an illegal formation at the snap.

Ruling: Team B’s ball at the nine yard line or the 25 yard line following the touchback. Team A may kick again following a five yard penalty from the previous spot (6-3-11, 6-3-2-a,b, 7-1-3-b).

So doesn't this say that team B has three enforcement options, the DB spot, the IT touch spot (a TB so were at the 20 for enforcement), or re-kick?

[Kalle]

So doesn't this say that team B has three enforcement options, the DB spot, the IT touch spot (a TB so were at the 20 for enforcement), or re-kick?

Yes, as there was a 6-3-11 bat. We are not arguing about that. We are arguing about other touches in the end zone.

[BankerRef]

So you are saying that if 10-2-4 applies it would require us to enforce previous spot or the goal line, B's option?  So if B decides to opt for the TB (the result of the IT in the EZ) they effectively have declined any penalties on A?

No, not saying that at all.  The goal line is not an option on this play.  10-2-4 says either previous spot or where dead ball belongs to team B.  In this case the ball was declared dead at the 2, absent a foul or the illegal touching that is where it would belong to team B.  If we apply 10-2-4 we would either mark it off from the 2 or the previous spot.  However, if you take the touching violation in the end zone your more advantageous spot is the 20 rather than marking off 10 yards from the 2. 

My main point is in how we apply 6-3-11.  The only foul described on this play is the illegal kicking in the end zone.  If you seek to apply 6-3-11 to this action you are in effect saying there is no foul to enforce.  You can't have it both ways with 6-3-11.

[RunRickyRun]

So here's one:  2007 NCAA Football Play Situations Bulletin No. 2 - September 2007

6. A-87 bats Team A’s previously untouched scrimmage kick in Team B’s end zone and the ball rolls dead on the four yard line. Team A was in an illegal formation at the snap.

Ruling: Team B’s ball at the nine yard line or the 25 yard line following the touchback. Team A may kick again following a five yard penalty from the previous spot (6-3-11, 6-3-2-a,b, 7-1-3-b).

So doesn't this say that team B has three enforcement options, the DB spot, the IT touch spot (a TB so were at the 20 for enforcement), or re-kick?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe 10-2-4 existed in it's current form in 2007.  The impetus for 10-2-4 (tacking-on) is reducing the number of kicking downs in a game and has fairly recently come to make a tack-on of almost all Team A fouls available.

I believe 10-2-4 is the exact rule that governs this situation as no other rule is on point to contradict it.

[Kalle]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe 10-2-4 existed in it's current form in 2007.

The rule was added in 2006.

[RunRickyRun]

The rule was added in 2006.

Did that apply to virtually all Team A penalties in 2006, or just 5-yard, procedural type fouls?

[Kalle]

Did that apply to virtually all Team A penalties in 2006, or just 5-yard, procedural type fouls?

Ah, 2006 came the 5-yard at the snap fouls, 2007 this was extended to all team A fouls (except KCI) (I don't have the 2007 rule book but the 2008 book has all fouls and it is not listed as a rule change for that year).