Great Situation Posed by a Big XII R

[TXMike]

Reading 10-2-1-a (2d sentence) in conjunction with 10-2-3-b (2d to the last sentence) says to me that PSKE is for 3 and 1 fouls with the basic spot being the end of the kick.  Surely you are not arguing that ANY foul that meets the 4 (used to be 5) criteria is a PSKE foul?

Example:  4th and 10 at the 50, Team A punts, while ball is in the air beyond the NZ,  substitute B22, 20 yards from the NZ, taunts the gunner A88 as he runs down the field near B's sideline.  Ball is caught at the B-10 and returned to the B-25.   You are not using PSKE are you?

[BNE-Ref]

I've always read it as 10-2-2 only kicks in (no pun intended) when there is no specific spot identified in the penalty statement (10-2-1-a), PSKE thus only has any bearing to those specific fouls with no specific spot listed, and in those cases the basic spot on scrimmage kick plays is the end of the kick (10-2-2-d-4-(b)).

And my reasoning as to why the wording was changed from "scrimmage kick play" to "scrimmage kick" is that if this change had not been made, because of the deletion of 10-2-3-b-3 (the foul occurs three or more yards beyond the neutral zone), then we would have had fouls such as holding on the line that occurred in the period between the snap and the kick becoming PSKE - which I'm certain is not the intention.

[bossman72]

This change makes zero sense to me.  So a gunner that gets held 5 yards down field before the kick leaves the kicker's foot is now previous spot?  That's not right!

[ref6983]

This change makes zero sense to me.  So a gunner that gets held 5 yards down field before the kick leaves the kicker's foot is now previous spot?  That's not right!

Make it PSK.

[Hursk]

I think Professor Diablo's point is well taken on the rules language.
Let me offer a possible "rationale" for the rule tweaks, following up on TxMike's statement of PSK philosophy:  "Is Team A able to deliver on its intention to give up possession, free of a B foul?"
If B fouls prior to the kick beginning, then no PSK...it is presumed that the B foul may have affected A's execution of the kick, so normal enforcement is used.
However, if B fouls after A has delivered foot to ball (plus the other conditions), then the opposite is presumed... B's foul did not interfere with A's intention to give up possession, so B will get the benefit of that possession but still suffer from the yardage penalty for its foul.
If this rationale is sound, then RRK/RNK would be PSK fouls if the other conditions were met... A got the kick off "clean" and the foul occurred thereafter, so B gets the benefit of possession plus penalty. 
(Personally, I don't love this result, given the danger to kickers...ought to be an Uberpenalty, like RPS)
Just a thought....

[BNE-Ref]

This change makes zero sense to me.  So a gunner that gets held 5 yards down field before the kick leaves the kicker's foot is now previous spot?  That's not right!

I follow your logic, but I believe that result is the effect of the changes.  Holding is a 3-and-1 foul, thus subject to potential PSKE.  However, because of the change in "scrimmage kick play" to "scrimmage kick", the basic spot is the previous spot.

[Magician]

I think Professor Diablo's point is well taken on the rules language.
Let me offer a possible "rationale" for the rule tweaks, following up on TxMike's statement of PSK philosophy:  "Is Team A able to deliver on its intention to give up possession, free of a B foul?"
If B fouls prior to the kick beginning, then no PSK...it is presumed that the B foul may have affected A's execution of the kick, so normal enforcement is used.
However, if B fouls after A has delivered foot to ball (plus the other conditions), then the opposite is presumed... B's foul did not interfere with A's intention to give up possession, so B will get the benefit of that possession but still suffer from the yardage penalty for its foul.
If this rationale is sound, then RRK/RNK would be PSK fouls if the other conditions were met... A got the kick off "clean" and the foul occurred thereafter, so B gets the benefit of possession plus penalty. 
(Personally, I don't love this result, given the danger to kickers...ought to be an Uberpenalty, like RPS)
Just a thought....

Agree.  Great analysis.  Fundamentally this isn't much of a change. Most of the penalties that were previous spot will still be previous spot and most that were PSK will be PSK.  We are just basing it on the timing of the kick rather than the spot of the foul.  Most fouls by B that happened within 3 yards happened before the kick.  I'm OK with this change.

[FLBJ]

A 4/10 at A-35. A9's punt is in the air when B25 who had rushed to 'force the punt' and assure there was no fake is locked up with personal protector/upback A33 when B25 throws A33 to the ground at the A-30. The ball is caught by B10 at the B-40 and returned to the 50.

2012: A 1/10 at A-45. This would not have qualified as PSK because the foul did not occur 3 or more yards beyond the line, even though A willingly gave up the ball (which is really the reason PSK was invented, so to speak).

2013: PSK enforcement (at least as best I can tell,  ).

[Diablo]

I think Professor Diablo's point is well taken on the rules language.
Let me offer a possible "rationale" for the rule tweaks, following up on TxMike's statement of PSK philosophy:  "Is Team A able to deliver on its intention to give up possession, free of a B foul?"
If B fouls prior to the kick beginning, then no PSK...it is presumed that the B foul may have affected A's execution of the kick, so normal enforcement is used.
However, if B fouls after A has delivered foot to ball (plus the other conditions), then the opposite is presumed... B's foul did not interfere with A's intention to give up possession, so B will get the benefit of that possession but still suffer from the yardage penalty for its foul.
If this rationale is sound, then RRK/RNK would be PSK fouls if the other conditions were met... A got the kick off "clean" and the foul occurred thereafter, so B gets the benefit of possession plus penalty. 
(Personally, I don't love this result, given the danger to kickers...ought to be an Uberpenalty, like RPS)
Just a thought....

Ahhh, I lifeline of solid reasoning.

Although 10-2-a-1 and 10-2-3-b refer to "Three-and-One Principle, I can't to see the connection supporting the concept that PSKE only applies to fouls which do not have specified enforcement spots, i.e. 3-and-1 fouls.  Granted those passages state that 3-and-1 enforcement should be used to penalize PSKE fouls, but that's not the same as saying PSKE fouls have to be those normally enforced via 3-and-1.

As FLBJ noted above, if B commits a personal foul (throws an opponent to the ground) during the kick, PSKE would be used to enforce the penalty this year.  So, what's the difference between that PF versus a roughing the kicker PF?  In fact, why isn't RK a 3-and-1 foul to begin with.  It's PENALTY (at the previous spot) is identical to that if the penalty enforcement was governed by basic spot and 3-and-1?

[TXMike]

Perhaps it is not a 3 and 1 specifically because the rulemakers did NOT want it to ever be enforced  with PSKE. 

4th and 10 at the 50, Team A punts, while ball is in the air beyond the NZ,  substitute B22, 20 yards from the NZ, taunts the gunner A88 as he runs down the field near B's sideline.  Ball is caught at the B-10 and returned to the B-25.   You are not using PSKE are you?

[Diablo]

4th and 10 at the 50, Team A punts, while ball is in the air beyond the NZ,  substitute B22, 20 yards from the NZ, taunts the gunner A88 as he runs down the field near B's sideline.  Ball is caught at the B-10 and returned to the B-25.   You are not using PSKE are you?

It sounds like an USC foul.  I'd say it is a live-ball with penalty administered as dead-ball foul. 

[TXMike]

So you would not enforce with PSKE because "it has a specified enforcement spot" right?  Same argument for other fouls with specified enforcement spots

[Diablo]

So you would not enforce with PSKE because "it has a specified enforcement spot" right?

"Wrong"! 
I would not use PSKE because I think PSKE should not apply to live-ball fouls treated as dead-ball.