2022 NCAA Week 8 Video - Play 1

[TxBJ]

Wow!  Punt play, hold by B during the kick, inadvertent whistle during the kick after the hold, Steve Shaw says they should have used PSK enforcement instead of IW rules that state the down be replayed after enforcement of the penalty.  Direct contradiction to the rules.  Again, wow!

[ElvisLives]

More flabbergasting, and very disturbing, information. With this ruling, Shaw just opened the door to simply ignoring the IW, with the crew just saying, “Oh, it had no impact on the down.” Even worse, coaches will now have the ability to argue that the IW had no effect on the down, and to let the down stand as it played out. Horrible interpretation.
But equally horrible officiating, in both downs that had an inadvertent whistle and an inadvertent signal. We simply have to be better than this. What were they thinking? If you need to get some players separated while the ball is alive, then HUSTLE over to them and verbally direct them to separate, and use your flag to reinforce this for the future, if necessary. Having a ‘brain fart’ and signaling for the clock to stop after throwing a flag is no excuse, or comfort to the teams.
We gotta be better than this.

[TxJim]

Just saw it and I came here for understanding. At what point and circumstances in the play does the IW transition to PSK? Is it when its apparent team B won't be playing the ball?

[Kalle]

Not having seen this actual play I kinda understand Shaw here. Team A has already decided to give the ball over to team B, so following the logic "as few kick plays as possible" there is very little harm to either team if you enforce this as a PSK - especially if a team B player catches the ball or the ball is kicked directly OOB.

But unless the kick is a really terrible one, there is relatively little harm to either team by repeating the down, as well. (edit: the penalty of course might result in a team A 1st down if it is not enforced as PSK)

[Imperial Stout]

The way to handle this is to take it up in the spring as a potential rule change.  This situation is terribly unfair to team B, as 99%+ of the time this would be PSK enforcement if it wasn't for the IW, and they keep the football. Now its a first down for team A after penalty enforcement.

There are ways to slap a band-aid on this situation, but Shaw needs to change the rules to do so.

[Covid 22]

It took a minute but I agree with Kalle.  Team A has surrendered possession of the ball.   The IW allows the team in possession to either repeat the play or take the result of the play.  They (Team B) chose to retain the ball at the end of the kick and PSK applied at that point. 

[ElvisLives]

The way to handle this is to take it up in the spring as a potential rule change.  This situation is terribly unfair to team B, as 99%+ of the time this would be PSK enforcement if it wasn't for the IW, and they keep the football. Now its a first down for team A after penalty enforcement.

There are ways to slap a band-aid on this situation, but Shaw needs to change the rules to do so.

I have always thought that non-flagrant fouls should be 'forgiven,' and the down repeated. If a foul requires DQ or Ejection, then it gets penalized at the previous spot, with whatever ramification that has with the down. With replay, they could even put all the time back on the clock. A true 're-do.' But, we can't allow targeting or a flagrant UNR go unpunished. If they don't want to get impacted that much, then teach their players to play within the rules.
If they change the rule to say "repeat the down, unless it happens during a scrimmage kick, and the foul would, otherwise, have been penalized as PSK," that opens a huge Pandora's Box. In the Oregon-Wash St game, very early, before the IW, Oregon had pretty well given up on attempting to recover and return the ball. That happens relatively frequently, I'll grant you. And, within such a strict set of parameters, maybe Shaw's ruling is more appropriate. But there are so many more scenarios that suddenly become "What ifs?" And we know how much Shaw hates "What ifs."
If they 'adjust' the rule to apply only to situations where the clear outcome of the down would have been B's ball with PSK enforcement, well, OK. Another 'exception' for us to remember, but we are up to it.
But, there can be a lot of subjective judgment there, which the rules committee should try to avoid.

The good news is that we - on the field - can avoid this by keeping our whistles out of our mouths, and hold all signals, until we PERSONALLY see the ball itself become dead.

[Covid 22]

Your response is not sufficient to address.   Please include enough information so that a conclusion can be reached or discussed.   I don't see any "What ifs" so please elaborate.  There are two outcomes. 
1. The ball becomes dead in "B" possession and they are penalized PSK 1st and 10.
2) The ball becomes dead in "A" possession.  "B" choses to have the 4th down repeated.   

Seems pretty cut and dry.

[TxBJ]

Your response is not sufficient to address.   Please include enough information so that a conclusion can be reached or discussed.   I don't see any "What ifs" so please elaborate.  There are two outcomes. 
1. The ball becomes dead in "B" possession and they are penalized PSK 1st and 10.
2) The ball becomes dead in "A" possession.  "B" choses to have the 4th down repeated.   

Seems pretty cut and dry.

On 2, if the ball becomes dead in "A" possession, it would be A's choice to repeat the down, not B's.

[ElvisLives]

Your response is not sufficient to address.   Please include enough information so that a conclusion can be reached or discussed.   I don't see any "What ifs" so please elaborate.  There are two outcomes. 
1. The ball becomes dead in "B" possession and they are penalized PSK 1st and 10.
2) The ball becomes dead in "A" possession.  "B" choses to have the 4th down repeated.   

Seems pretty cut and dry.

Re-read carefully. If they adjust the rule to ONLY make an exception for scrimmage kicks where the clear result of the down is B's ball with PSK enforcement, then OK. But, if you are going to do that, why not let USC keep the ball after the inadvertent signal that ocurred after they gained possession? IW during on-side kick, and A would have recovered. Games without replay? So many possible what ifs.

[Imperial Stout]

I think "player possession" is the key here.  The ball could have rolled another 30 yards downfield after the IW.  This opens up a can of worms I'd like to keep shut.  Once player possession is established, its up to that team whether they are happy with the result, with penalties enforced, or have a redo.

Overall, absent player possession, cancelling anything other than a flagrant PF, UNS, etc. and replay the down would come close to the fairest outcome, but I'm sure there are other things that can crop up. 

However, the best thing to do is do is not have a IW in the first place.

[Covid 22]

On 2, if the ball becomes dead in "A" possession, it would be A's choice to repeat the down, not B's.

I have to admit that this is a tricky situation but the inadvertent whistle came during team B's "control/possession" before the kick ended.  So it would be team B's call for replay the down or take the result of the play.  Could be wrong, just how I see it.

[ElvisLives]

I have to admit that this is a tricky situation but the inadvertent whistle came during team B's "control/possession" before the kick ended.  So it would be team B's call for replay the down or take the result of the play.  Could be wrong, just how I see it.

Yes, this is a bit complicated. But, officially, Team A is still in team possession until a player of Team B gains literal possession, or the ball, loose from the kick, otherwise becomes dead. If all conditions for PSK are met, fouls by Team B during the kick are 'treated' as though they occurred after Team B gains possession (by player possession, or by being awarded the ball at the end of the down). That's what the expression, "Team B is taken as the team in possession..." means. It doesn't mean they are actually, or officially, the team in possession; only that, when the down is over, their fouls during the kick are treated as though they were the team in possession when those fouls occurred.
So, an IW during the kick, even while the ball is slowly rolling to a stop with players gathered around watching it, would be required to be repeated, since it occurred during the kick play portion of the down. Nobody has an option in this case.
Move to 2022 Video Review 8, and, by Shaw's direction, in this narrow set of circumstances (boy, does this sound like supreme court judges handing down rulings, or what?), we are to, effectively, ignore the IW, and process the down as though it ended routinely, with Team A illegally possessing the ball (or the ball otherwise becomes dead before a player of Team B takes literal possession of it). This is a very narrow and specific set of circumstances. But they do occur rather routinely.
As officials, we must be focused and alert, and exercise extreme whistle control, at all times, to avoid complications caused by inadvertent whistles and/or signals.

[Imperial Stout]

AR 4-1-2-II is kind of related, with respect to a IW during a scrimmage kick without player possession.  In this case, its an IW at the time of a muff, with no clear recovery of the muff after the whistle. There is a holding penalty by team B during the kick. For games with instant replay, the ruling was to do PSK enforcement of the holding penalty from the spot of the muff when the IW blew.  For games without instant replay, the holding penalty would be enforced at the previous spot, 1st and 10 for team A.

Instant replay still gives me problems on what they can and can't do. Even though there is not enough evidence to make any sort of ruling, the penalty enforcement changes from what it normally otherwise should be.

[ElvisLives]

AR 4-1-2-II is kind of related, with respect to a IW during a scrimmage kick without player possession.  In this case, its an IW at the time of a muff, with no clear recovery of the muff after the whistle. There is a holding penalty by team B during the kick. For games with instant replay, the ruling was to do PSK enforcement of the holding penalty from the spot of the muff when the IW blew.  For games without instant replay, the holding penalty would be enforced at the previous spot, 1st and 10 for team A.

Instant replay still gives me problems on what they can and can't do. Even though there is not enough evidence to make any sort of ruling, the penalty enforcement changes from what it normally otherwise should be.

Well, that would seem to be the foundation of Shaw's ruling. Not being involved in games with replay any longer (not since 2012), I haven't kept up with replay rulings/ARs, etc., so I wasn't aware of this AR. So, he is applying the IW principle in this AR to the IW in this video. Well, OK. Not a betting person, but I would lay a nickel on getting an actual AR regarding an IW during a scrimmage kick, with a B foul, in 2023.

[bctgp]

I see lots or replies that say Team B was technically in possession and they get the choice of taking result of the play (where inadvertently declared dead and PSK applied according or replaying the down).  However, they get no such option the rules are clear on an IW during a KICK. The only option is to replay the down - but an accepted penalty for a foul occurring before the IW causes us to ignore the IW other than for clock status on next play.  Until they change the rules, the only option here is to enforce the Team B foul at previous spot , 1st down Team A.  Yeah, it sucks for Team B but it is what it is. Perhaps they shouldn't have held.

[Punter]

That kind of answer borders on officials’ arrogance to me.  Perhaps, we should not have had the IW. 

[ElvisLives]

However, they get no such option the rules are clear on an IW during a KICK. The only option is to replay the down - but an accepted penalty for a foul occurring before the IW cancels the IW.

In a game WITHOUT REPLAY, no, there is no ability to award the ball to Team B. The IW is not canceled by anything. The IW is what is causing the down to be repeated at the previous spot. Any foul (either team) is penalized as in any other situation. In the AR and in the video play, the foul is one that would be penalized AT the previous spot, since it is a Team B foul during a scrimmage kick, and the Basic Spot for fouls during a scrimmage kick is the previous spot. PSK doesn't apply, because Team B will not next snap the ball.
And, because of the IW - which is not canceled - the game clock will start on the referee's signal, including after any penalties are enforced, even if the clock was NOT running when the previous down started.

But, in a game with replay, the IW may be 'ignored,' and a B foul can be penalized as PSK, relative to the end of the kick that replay can establish.

Now, I will confess that, in a game WITHOUT replay, and the IW occurs while players are gathered around a rolling ball (loose from a scrimmage kick), waiting for it to come to a stop, why they can't award the ball to Team B, wherever it comes to rest, is possessed by a player, or goes OB. Penalize any B foul as PSK. Who needs replay for that? But, that can open other cans of worms, I suppose.

Yes. Best if the IW had not occurred.