This is a rule that needs to be changed. The rule as it stands allows a team to benefit from committing a foul. I don't think any rules are intended to do that. Based on the situation in the OK St v Cent Michigan game, I submitted a rule change request to my state association for the NFHS to consider such a change.
The officials in this game erred by the book, but I believe that logic may have affected their thinking. Logic would clearly dictate that a team should not gain an advantage by committing a foul.
Rogers Redding, NCAA Rules Editor released what I thought was a very solid statement on this:
"Recently the extension of a period (Rule 3-2-3) has been a topic of active
discussion across the football landscape. My purpose here is to give the philosophy and
purpose of the rule.
One can get a hint of the philosophy by looking for the common element in
those circumstances where the period is extended. The thing they have in common is
this: in every case the down just played is repeated. Offsetting fouls, accepted penalties
(not including loss of down), and inadvertent whistle—all of these have the down
repeated. In the case of the inadvertent whistle, there are some other elements that
come into play, but repeating the down is an outcome of several possibilities.
When the down is going to be repeated, that really means that it has not yet
been resolved. Put another way, there is some unfinished business to take care of
before the period is over. And the “do-over” of that last play is what is required to wrap
up that period, to bring it to a close. So we say that we extend the period---and we do
that to take care of that unfinished business: the down that needs to be repeated.
Given that philosophy, it should be easy to see why the period is not extended
when there is an offensive foul whose penalty calls for loss of down. Remember that
“loss of down” is shorthand for “loss of the right to repeat the down.” So with regard to
extending the period, since there will be no repeat of the down, then the business of the
period has been taken care of; hence there is no reason to extend the period--it is truly
over, there is no unfinished business, and we move on to the next period. Of course, if
this takes place in the second or fourth period, the half is over.
There is one little wrinkle that needs clarifying. Suppose the clock runs out
during a down in which there is a personal foul by Team B. The penalty will be tacked
on at the basic spot and the period will be extended for Team A to run a play on first
down. At first blush it looks like the down is not being repeated. But is really is, since it
is unfinished business that needs to be taken care of, even though the number of the
down is not what it would have been. The same thing is true for a foul that doesn’t
include an automatic first down but does leave the ball beyond the line to gain. The
repeated down is first down, because of other rules that determine the number of the
down.
Finally, consider the situation that has generated so much discussion: the clock
runs out during a fourth-down play during which Team A commits a foul whose penalty
includes loss of down. The ball goes over on downs. If this happens in the first or third
period, Team B next puts the ball in play after the change of period, to either second or
fourth.
Many people push back against not extending the second or fourth period in this
case, claiming that it “deprives Team B the right to snap the ball.” But you can see that
no such right exists, given the spirit and intent of the rule for extending. That is,
extending the period is not about running another play; instead, it is about finishing up
the business of the period by extending it so that the previous down can be repeated,
and hence resolved."
