Question of the Day

[ElvisLives]

4/5, A-30, 7:00 (2), no score.
A12 legally punts the ball, but is run into by B39 on the shoulder, clearly and truly causing A12 to fall to the ground (but not endangering him). While the kick is in flight, A21 gets up, chases down, and slugs B39. B29 completes a fair catch at the B-30.

Ruling:
(As always, include game and play clock status.)

For Texas UIL guys, the ruling may be slightly different than pure NCAA. If so, clearly indicate either (or both).   

[Snapper]

4/5, A-30, 7:00 (2), no score.
A12 legally punts the ball, but is run into by B39 on the shoulder, clearly and truly causing A12 to fall to the ground (but not endangering him). While the kick is in flight, A21 gets up, chases down, and slugs B39. B29 completes a fair catch at the B-30.

Ruling:
(As always, include game and play clock status.)

For Texas UIL guys, the ruling may be slightly different than pure NCAA. If so, clearly indicate either (or both).

A 4/5 A30 Snap 25.  Eject A21.

I would NOT have this announced as fighting.  But I would make sure to tell my supervisor about it during our post-game phone call.  Let him decide how he wants it handled.

[ElvisLives]

A 4/5 A30 Snap 25.  Eject A21.

I would NOT have this announced as fighting.  But I would make sure to tell my supervisor about it during our post-game phone call.  Let him decide how he wants it handled.

Any other option?

[Snapper]

Any other option?

Not that I can think of.  But it’s always possible that I’m missing something.

B can not decline A’s penalty and keep the ball.  That’s because B’s foul is not PSK.  So as far as I can see, this play has to be an offset.

[ElvisLives]

Not that I can think of.  But it’s always possible that I’m missing something.

B can not decline A’s penalty and keep the ball.  That’s because B’s foul is not PSK.  So as far as I can see, this play has to be an offset.

How is it not PSK?

[Snapper]

How is it not PSK?

The way that I am reading the play, it sounds like we have Running Into the Kicker.  Running into and Roughing are both previous spot enforcements.

[JasonTX]

The game clock will start on the snap with a 25 second play clock.  Agree with offsetting.  Running Into or Roughing are previous spot enforcements.

[ElvisLives]

The way that I am reading the play, it sounds like we have Running Into the Kicker.  Running into and Roughing are both previous spot enforcements.

There ya go. I was trying to trick everybody on the PSK thing. Rule 9 fouls are, typically, Basic Spot/3 and 1 enforcements, "...except as otherwise noted,.." And RNH and RRK are both 'otherwise noted' as specifically previous spot enforcements. PSK only applies to Basic Spot/3 and 1 enforcements. So, in this case, the fouls offset, the penalties cancel, and the down is repeated. A12 (sorry, not A21 - typo) is ejected in NCAA (disqualified in UIL).
Now, is that necessarily consistent with the purpose of PSK rules? IMHO opinion, no. I personally think they need to change the penalty for RNH and RRK, to allow them to be penalized at the previous spot, and also allow them to qualify for PSK.
But I'm not in charge.

Everybody with games tonight or this weekend, be safe and have fun!

[Legacy Zebra]

I’m going to disagree Elvis. This fits the philosophy of PSK perfectly. The overarching philosophy of PSK is that fouls involving the rush and attempt to block the kick should be penalized from the previous spot because they are trying to prevent A from advancing the ball. However fouls that prevent A from covering the kick or give an unfair advantage to the return (such as holding a gunner), should be treated as part of Team B’s possession. Given that philosophy it makes sense that RNK/RRK should not be PSK because they involve a failed attempt to block the kick.

[ElvisLives]

I’m going to disagree Elvis. This fits the philosophy of PSK perfectly. The overarching philosophy of PSK is that fouls involving the rush and attempt to block the kick should be penalized from the previous spot because they are trying to prevent A from advancing the ball. However fouls that prevent A from covering the kick or give an unfair advantage to the return (such as holding a gunner), should be treated as part of Team B’s possession. Given that philosophy it makes sense that RNK/RRK should not be PSK because they involve a failed attempt to block the kick.

I can buy that.

But, to make sure we don't confuse anybody, Team B might actually succeed in blocking the kick, but a player other than the blocker may still be guilty of a RNK/RRK foul. Yes, that player's attempt to block the kick would be considering as having failed - no question. But, I just didn't want folks to think that a RNK/RRK foul couldn't be called if Team B did, in fact manage to block the kick successfully. Only the blocker of a kick may contact the kicker/holder, within the bounds of the RNK/RRK foul conditions.

[peterparsons]

I'm in agreement with Legacy Zebra. The previous spot enforcement for Leaping further reinforces this philosophy.

In one of the VVC sessions, there was an example of a hold by Team B on a punt play which occured clearly before the kick (as the kicker delayed kicking the ball), but the hold was done to stop a member of the kicking team releasing downfield to cover the kick, so by philsophy was treated under PSK. The clip is on YouTube here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1Mym9Zg1KM