Misapplication of Rules Costs Team Win

[Rulesman]

The request for a Temporary Restraining Order has been denied. Result stands.

A judge with some common sense!

[TxSkyBolt]

http://chicago.suntimes.com/news/judge-says-plainfield-north-should-play-in-7a-title-game/


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[AFOpie]

Relevant article. Good read if you have a few minutes.

http://www.si.com/vault/1994/12/26/132955/when-your-dream-dies-after-a-high-school-referee-blew-a-call-that-helped-cost-him-a-chance-to-work-a-championship-football-game-his-life-no-longer-seemed-worth-living

[TxSkyBolt]

Relevant article. Good read if you have a few minutes.

http://www.si.com/vault/1994/12/26/132955/when-your-dream-dies-after-a-high-school-referee-blew-a-call-that-helped-cost-him-a-chance-to-work-a-championship-football-game-his-life-no-longer-seemed-worth-living

I read that a while ago.  Hard to believe that would lead a man to suicide.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Ted T]

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."

Well, when a team is denied the opportunity to win a game because the other team has committed a foul, intentionally or otherwise, that certainly seems to me that "there is some unfinished business to take care of."  In fact, in the game we love that would be the ultimate in "unfinished business".
Let's consider the fact that the replaying of this down would have been heartily defended by the rulesmakers only a few years ago when "the book" would have required the replay of this down.  In fact, in line with that, I would further contend that the situation being discussed in this thread is one of those unusual side effects that is often overlooked when a rule change is made.

[Ted T]

Please help me understand the "logic" of incorrectly allowing a team to have an extra play after committing a loss of down foul.  Is it possible this entire crew has been living under a rock since the CMU/OK State debacle?

As far as other committing a foul not involving a LOD on the final play of a period is concerned, unless it's a scoring play, the offended team needs only to decline the penalty to end the period/game.  If there is a scoring play during which the scoring team fouls, the score will be nullified by the acceptance of the foul; and, yes, there will be another play.  But it is a far better option than allowing the score; and there is no guarantee the offending team will score again.

I'm not defending the crew's error.  The rule, as it currently reads, was not applied correctly. As you implied, how a crew of 7 could misapply a rule that had garnered national attention only a few weeks earlier is beyond me.  When I refer to logic, I'm considering how such a situation might be resolved if there were no rule to cover it.  In such a case we might say to ourselves, "We can't let them get away with that."  Letting a team benefit by committing a foul seems contrary to what we are called to do.

[TxSkyBolt]

If there were no LOD provision, the down would be repeated with Team A kneeling to end the game. Either way, game over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Ted T]

If there were no LOD provision, the down would be repeated with Team A kneeling to end the game. Either way, game over.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And once again, a team would be gaining an advantage by committing a foul.  The effort has been made over the years to eliminate such situations.  e.g.- if a team is attempting to consume time by continually false starting, the referee may invoke rule 1-1-6 and not start the clock on the ready.

[NVFOA_Ump]

For discussion, what's the downside of giving the offended team the option of 1 untimed down if a half or game ended on a play where the fouling team committed a foul that included the loss of down statement?  The offended team could then decide if it's to their advantage to have another snap by whichever team had the ball after the penalty enforcement.  That (I think) would prevent the team in the lead from intentionally fouling to run out the clock and end the game as should have happened here under the current rule.

Do we open Pandora's box with a such a change?

[BrendanP]

It's situations like these that I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least looking into allowing the league, be it the state association or the NCAA, to retroactively change the final score, but only in extreme, obvious, and egregious circumstances, like OK State/Central Michigan or the 5th down game from 1990. This Illinois game included, those are the only three games I can think of that such a provision would apply.

To prevent it from being a slippery slope, I would use the most extreme, hyperbolic language in terms of defining "egregious" for the purpose of such a rule to send the message that this is not to be used for cases of "You missed an obvious block in the back on the game winning touchdown!"

[Rulesman]

It's situations like these that I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least looking into allowing the league, be it the state association or the NCAA, to retroactively change the final score, but only in extreme, obvious, and egregious circumstances, like OK State/Central Michigan or the 5th down game from 1990. This Illinois game included, those are the only three games I can think of that such a provision would apply.

To prevent it from being a slippery slope, I would use the most extreme, hyperbolic language in terms of defining "egregious" for the purpose of such a rule to send the message that this is not to be used for cases of "You missed an obvious block in the back on the game winning touchdown!"

Terrible idea. Pandora's box is now opened. You will NEVER be able to define everything egregious. Human beings play the game. Human beings officiate the game. Stuff happens and you won't ever make everyone happy, no matter what the outcome of such a reversal/non-reversal.

[SouthGARef]

It's situations like these that I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to at least looking into allowing the league, be it the state association or the NCAA, to retroactively change the final score, but only in extreme, obvious, and egregious circumstances, like OK State/Central Michigan or the 5th down game from 1990. This Illinois game included, those are the only three games I can think of that such a provision would apply.

To prevent it from being a slippery slope, I would use the most extreme, hyperbolic language in terms of defining "egregious" for the purpose of such a rule to send the message that this is not to be used for cases of "You missed an obvious block in the back on the game winning touchdown!"

What's egregious to you might mean something entirely different to someone else. I'm sure Michigan fans today would want the final result of Saturday's games overturned.

No thanks.

[NVFOA_Ump]

For discussion, what's the downside of giving Team B the option of 1 untimed down if a half or game ended on a play where Team A committed a foul that included the loss of down statement?  Team B could then decide if it's to their advantage to have another snap by whichever team had the ball after the penalty enforcement.  That (I think) would prevent Team A while in the lead from intentionally fouling to run out the clock and end the half or the game.

Do we open Pandora's box with a such a change?

[Rulesman]

For discussion, what's the downside of giving Team B the option of 1 untimed down if a half or game ended on a play where Team A committed a foul that included the loss of down statement?  Team B could then decide if it's to their advantage to have another snap by whichever team had the ball after the penalty enforcement.

I believe Team B had that option before the rule was changed to its current iteration. If so, the rules makers saw something that needed to be fixed.

[bama_stripes]

I believe the rule was changed to prevent the offense from gaining an advantage on a play such as this:

A's ball 4th-and-1 from the 50 with 5 seconds left in the game, A trails by 2.
QB A12 drops back to pass, but is flushed and runs to the B-5 as time expires.  He then passes complete to A88 in B's end zone.

Under the old rule, B would accept the IFP penalty (declining it would result in a TD for A), 5 yards from the spot of the foul.  The LOD provision wouldn't matter, as A was well past the LTG.  A would then have an untimed down and be able to attempt a short FG.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Good example.  That clearly would not be an acceptable change then.  Maybe there's simply no way to fix it.

Just doesn't seem right to end a game on an intentional penalty by the "winning" team although we just saw 8 of them (all holding calls) as an NFL game ended this past week.  Don't think I've ever seen that many flags on the field on a live ball play before. 

[Eastshire]

Couldn't the rule simply state that the period would be extended for an untimed down if the offended team is next to put the ball in play?

That would take care of bama_stripes play because A offended and A is next to put the ball in play. It takes care of the OP because A offended and B is next to put the ball in play.

[bama_stripes]

It wouldn't address the NFL holding problem, since A would put the ball in play by a free kick.

Expect to see that play in our games next year!   

[Eastshire]

It wouldn't address the NFL holding problem, since A would put the ball in play by a free kick.

Expect to see that play in our games next year!   

Fair point. Penalties involving safeties and plays resulting in safeties seem to be a frequent sticking point with unfair results for the offended team. I think that's conceivable a separate issue which needs worked out rather than particularly part of this issue, although they obviously intersect.

[bbeagle]

Just doesn't seem right to end a game on an intentional penalty by the "winning" team although we just saw 8 of them (all holding calls) as an NFL game ended this past week.  Don't think I've ever seen that many flags on the field on a live ball play before. 

One solution is to just extend the game until no foul is committed.

We give an untimed down for the offense if the defense commits a penalty. Give the defense an option if the offense commits a penalty, which doesn't exist in the book right now.

Foul by A on the final play: B, in addition to accepting or declining a penalty, or result of the play, has the option to set the time on the clock to the time at the previous snap.

This would stop the holding play, as the Bengals could elect to set the game clock back to :11 AND decline the slew of holding penalties to take the safety. Then the Ravens would kick off with :11 left.

The intentional grounding high school play would set the clock back to :04, taking the penalty which results in loss of down, and with B getting the ball for the game winning kick.

[DeltaRef51]

Back in 2008, there was a playoff game in Mississippi that had the final score overturned by the governing body of HS sports, the Mississippi High School Activities Association.
Home team was behind 21-18 with only seconds remaining in the fourth quarter. On the play in which the clock ran out, the QB scrambled down (well past the LOS) the field to around the B 15 yard line. Just before he was tackled, he threw a pass into the end zone for an apparent TD.
The flag was thrown for the illegal pass, but the officials marked off the five yard penalty and replayed the down. The result was a TD pass for A.
On the following Tuesday, the MHSAA declared the winning TD was scored on a play that should never have happened and reversed the outcome.
The home team tried to go to court, (had an attorney filed an injunction) but were unsuccessful in the attempt.

[AlUpstateNY]

Every now and then, common sense prevails.

[Ralph Damren]

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.

I agree, Ted, when 3-3-4b(3) was added it's intent was to prevent a team from benefiting from an illegal act. It was prompted by a championship game in Louisiana, where R returned a kickoff via a "rugby scrum" as time expired. As a R player was about to be tackled at K's 15, he hurled the ball toward K's end zone where a teammate caught it. To negate the TD, K accepted the IFP giving the ball to R @ K's 20 with an untimed down and trailing by TWO. In came Hans (the place kicker), thru the pipes went the football and to the NFHS rules committee went the LA rep. Thinking of a potential play of OPI on 4th down, turning the ball over to B (back then OPI=LOD) should allow B to have a play and suggested such.

My suggestion  back then didn't go far....

With INTENTIONAL grounding being an INTENTIONAL act and used to benefit from an INTENTIONAL, illegal act; my next suggestion will be in the form of a proposal. At first blush, adding to 3-3-4b(3) : "fouls that specify a loss of down ,UNLESS A CHANGE OF POSSESSION OCCURS." Unless you guys have better ideas.

IMHO, both the NFHS & NCAA crews inadvertently ran into the same rules glitch and did what seemed the common sense thing to do. The docket is already formulated for this year's proposed changes, but it's a good one to keep in mind for next year.

[ncwingman]

With INTENTIONAL grounding being an INTENTIONAL act and used to benefit from an INTENTIONAL, illegal act; my next suggestion will be in the form of a proposal. At first blush, adding to 3-3-4b(3) : "fouls that specify a loss of down ,UNLESS A CHANGE OF POSSESSION OCCURS." Unless you guys have better ideas.

My major issue with this is that it creates an exception to the rules -- in this particular case, the penalty does not cause the down to be repeated, but instead adds an additional down to be played. Additionally, it violates one of the Football Fundamentals -- "No foul causes loss of the ball". We're awarding B the ball and a free play that would not have happened if the foul had not occurred.

How about this as an alternative -- For a foul that specifies loss of down that occurs during a down in which time expires, the clock shall be reset to the time remaining at the snap of the previous (just completed) down and the down replayed. The yardage penalty for the foul will also be enforced. The clock will start with on the snap.

This way A cannot illegal kill the last play of the game and we make them do it again until they do it legally.

[ALStripes17]

My major issue with this is that it creates an exception to the rules -- in this particular case, the penalty does not cause the down to be repeated, but instead adds an additional down to be played. Additionally, it violates one of the Football Fundamentals -- "No foul causes loss of the ball". We're awarding B the ball and a free play that would not have happened if the foul had not occurred.

How about this as an alternative -- For a foul that specifies loss of down that occurs during a down in which time expires, the clock shall be reset to the time remaining at the snap of the previous (just completed) down and the down replayed. The yardage penalty for the foul will also be enforced. The clock will start with on the snap.

This way A cannot illegal kill the last play of the game and we make them do it again until they do it legally.

The fundamental is still intact. The foul is not turning the ball over. The fact that 4th down has ended still turns the ball over, as it does at any other point during a game.

I'm in the camp of keeping the foul as is honestly. Yes it's a foul, but in almost every exchange where people say "the officials cost us the game," we retort with "negative, there were X number of minutes and coaching decisions that cost them the game." I think that mantra can still be applied here.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk