IG on a 4th down at the end of the game

[Kalle]

From the NFHS board, generating NCAA discussion.

4/20 @B-40. Score is A17-B10 with 5 seconds on the game clock. QB A11 is still inside the pocket looking for an open receiver. About to be tackled he throws an incomplete forward pass to B-10 where there are no players within 30 yards. The game clock expires during the down. What next?

[Edit: fixed the play so that there is a clear intentional grounding foul]

[JasonTX]

What's the issue?  He's outside of the tackle box and throws a pass that lands beyond the neutral zone.  Game over.  If you rule there is some illegal pass, then enforce the penalty with a loss of down and extend the period at the option of Team B.  That would yield a 1st down for team B with an untimed down.

[ncwingman]

I would still like to see the AR/memo/rules video/official correspondence that states B gets the ball for an untimed down despite not having the ball at the time of the foul with no change of possession during the down.

[Kalle]

What's the issue?  He's outside of the tackle box and throws a pass that lands beyond the neutral zone.  Game over.  If you rule there is some illegal pass, then enforce the penalty with a loss of down and extend the period at the option of Team B.  That would yield a 1st down for team B with an untimed down.

Sorry, tried to copy the question from NFHS and screwed it up. OP now should be a clear IG foul situation.

[JasonTX]

I would still like to see the AR/memo/rules video/official correspondence that states B gets the ball for an untimed down despite not having the ball at the time of the foul with no change of possession during the down.

3-2-3-a

[JasonTX]

I would still like to see the AR/memo/rules video/official correspondence that states B gets the ball for an untimed down despite not having the ball at the time of the foul with no change of possession during the down.

AR 3-2-3-II also covers this. 

How would you work this:  1st and 10 at the A-2.  As time expired in the 2nd qtr, team A is flagged for holding in their own end and a pass is thrown incomplete.   Ruling?

[ncwingman]

ARTICLE 3. a. A period shall be extended for an untimed down if one or more of the following occurs during a down in which time expires in the 2nd or 4th quarter (A.R. 3-2-3-I-VIII):
1. A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) (Exception: Rule 10-2-5-a). At the option of the offended team, the period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty includes loss of down (A.R. 3-2-3-VIII).

My problem is that it doesn't say "B gets the ball and a free play". You're inferring it, but it's not explicitly stated. The relevant AR doesn't address the scenario where B elects to extend the period after a loss of down foul:

Time expires in the first half on a play in which A12 is beyond the neutral zone when he completes a pass to A88 in Team B’s end zone. RULING:
Team B accepts the penalty to nullify the score, and at the option of the offended team the period is not extended because the penalty includes loss of down. The first half ends.

In 2016, Central Michigan was given such an extra play after Oklahoma State intentionally grounded the ball on the final play of the game. The officiating crew in that contest was reprimanded and suspended for incorrectly applying the rule (at the time). I would like to see the memo that explicitly states that crew's interpretation is now correct.

Do you understand that I want to see specific guidance and not just "Well, if you think about how it might be interpreted..."?

AR 3-2-3-II also covers this. 

How would you work this:  1st and 10 at the A-2.  As time expired in the 2nd qtr, team A is flagged for holding in their own end and a pass is thrown incomplete.   Ruling?

3-2-3-II involves a free kick. Penalty enforcement during a free (or scrimmage) kick can be applied at the end of the kick/run when B has the ball by rule at the end of the down. In the IG case, B only gets awarded the ball after it is noted that the penalty enforcement leaves A behind the LTG after 4th down. If the same play occurred on 3rd down, B doesn't magically get the ball because of the IG.

If A holds in their own end zone on 1st down, the penalty enforcement results in a safety. The half should be over at that point. Are you implying that B has the option of forcing a post-safety free kick as an untimed down?

All of these added plays, not replayed downs, seem important and significant enough to warrant explicit guidance saying "Yes, do this." That's what I'm looking for.

[JasonTX]

My problem is that it doesn't say "B gets the ball and a free play". You're inferring it, but it's not explicitly stated. The relevant AR doesn't address the scenario where B elects to extend the period after a loss of down foul:

In 2016, Central Michigan was given such an extra play after Oklahoma State intentionally grounded the ball on the final play of the game. The officiating crew in that contest was reprimanded and suspended for incorrectly applying the rule (at the time). I would like to see the memo that explicitly states that crew's interpretation is now correct.

Do you understand that I want to see specific guidance and not just "Well, if you think about how it might be interpreted..."?

3-2-3-II involves a free kick. Penalty enforcement during a free (or scrimmage) kick can be applied at the end of the kick/run when B has the ball by rule at the end of the down. In the IG case, B only gets awarded the ball after it is noted that the penalty enforcement leaves A behind the LTG after 4th down. If the same play occurred on 3rd down, B doesn't magically get the ball because of the IG.

If A holds in their own end zone on 1st down, the penalty enforcement results in a safety. The half should be over at that point. Are you implying that B has the option of forcing a post-safety free kick as an untimed down?

All of these added plays, not replayed downs, seem important and significant enough to warrant explicit guidance saying "Yes, do this." That's what I'm looking for.

Yes, you would extend the period for a free kick down.  That's what we do when you extend the period for an untimed down.  It doesn't matter who is next to put the ball in play.  When the 2nd or 4th period ends and there is an accepted penalty for a live ball foul, the opposing team has the option to extend the period.

[ElvisLives]

Yes, you would extend the period for a free kick down.  That's what we do when you extend the period for an untimed down.  It doesn't matter who is next to put the ball in play.  When the 2nd or 4th period ends and there is an accepted penalty for a live ball foul, the opposing team has the option to extend the period.

Jason, the “option” to extend only applies to fouls that include loss of down in their penalty statements. Now, the offended team can decline the penalty (for any foul - not just those with LOD in the penalty statement) to end the period, if that works best for them.

[JasonTX]

Jason, the “option” to extend only applies to fouls that include loss of down in their penalty statements. Now, the offended team can decline the penalty (for any foul - not just those with LOD in the penalty statement) to end the period, if that works best for them.

I'm talking about 2nd and 4th period fouls in my example and time expires during the down.  The option to extend would exist if it benefits the opposing team.  The next down could be Team B snapping it or it could be a free kick after a safety.

[ncwingman]

Yes, you would extend the period for a free kick down.  That's what we do when you extend the period for an untimed down.  It doesn't matter who is next to put the ball in play.  When the 2nd or 4th period ends and there is an accepted penalty for a live ball foul, the opposing team has the option to extend the period.

As I noted above, a crew in 2016 was reprimanded after a very public incident where they extended the 4th quarter after an IG call on the last timed down. It seems to me that if they've changed the rule *so that this is now correct* there would be a memo or rules video or something that explicitly says that is now correct. The way the play was handled in 2016 is the correct thing to do moving forward -- despite the only thing in the public consciousness is about how that play was handled incorrectly and it shouldn't have happened that way.

The complete lack of interaction with my original request about this sort of statement suggests that no such statement actually exists. Instead, the NCAA tweaked a rule (5 years later for the 2021 season, I've now discovered) in a rather vague way that leaves the door open to interpretation rather than having any explicit guidance, thus setting themselves up for a repeat public misinterpretation of the rules, except this time in the other direction.

[Kalle]

We discussed this back when it happened at http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=12829.0

And it sounds to me that the rule change since then has changed the situation so that the period is extended for the team B 1st down.

[ElvisLives]

I'm talking about 2nd and 4th period fouls in my example and time expires during the down.  The option to extend would exist if it benefits the opposing team.  The next down could be Team B snapping it or it could be a free kick after a safety.

Yes, I think we all are talking about fouls at the end of the 2nd/4th periods, because we no longer extend for fouls at the end of the 1st/3rd periods. What I’m trying to remind everyone is that the offended team only has an ‘option’ to extend, or not extend, if the foul has LOD in the penalty statement. Team A illegal formation/holding/block below the waist, etc., etc., IF THE PENALTY IS ACCEPTED, will require a down to be played in the extended period. No ‘option’ to accept the penalty AND end the period. The offended team can decline the penalty and the period will end. But, if the offending team happened to score on that previous down, the offended team will need to accept the penalty to cancel the score. And that means a down in the extended period MUST be played. No option to end the period.
Now, for an illegal pass, illegal touching, illegal batting/kicking, etc., all of which contain LOD, the offended team may accept the penalty, to cancel a score, AND choose to extend the period for a down, or end the period. But only with LOD fouls.

Yeah, if Team A holds in their end zone as time expires in the 2nd/4th periods, Team B can accept the penalty, for the safety, and that will force Team A to make a free kick in the extended period. Team B does NOT have the option to end the period, in such cases. That option is only available with LOD fouls.

4/10, A-40. A=14, B=10. A11 illegally grounds a forward pass from the A-35. Time in the 2nd period expired during the down.
Team B will accept the penalty, which is LOD at the spot of the pass (A-35). Team B will have 1/10 at the A-35, for a down in the extended period.

1/10, B-40. A=7, B=14. A11 muffs the backward pass snap at the B-45, and bats the loose ball at the B-45 to the B-42, where A88 recovers the ball while upright and advances the ball across B’s goal line. Time in the 2nd period expired during the down.
Team B will accept the penalty for the illegal batting, to cancel the score. Since the penalty includes loss of down in the penalty statement, Team B will also invoke their option to NOT extend the period for an untimed down. The half ends.

1/10, B-20. A=7, B=7. A11 throws a legal forward pass to A88 in B’s end zone for a touchdown. A77 held B55 at the B-23. Time in the second period expired during the down.
Team B will accept the penalty to cancel the score. Team A will repeat 1st down from the 50, in the extended period. (Team B does NOT have an option to accept the penalty AND end the period.)

[ncwingman]

We discussed this back when it happened at http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=12829.0

And it sounds to me that the rule change since then has changed the situation so that the period is extended for the team B 1st down.

It sounds to me like this should be explicitly stated somewhere and not just left to "it sounds to me" because it won't sound like that to everybody, especially to that crew that got suspended over it the last time.

Anyway, I hope I've made my point by now... 

[Kalle]

This is the rule from 2015: "A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) (Exception: Rule 10-2-5-a). The period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty includes loss of down (A.R. 3-2-3-VIII)."

This is the current rule: "A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) (Exception: Rule 10-2-5-a). At the option of the offended team, the period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty includes loss of down (A.R. 3-2-3-VIII)."

I read this to mean that there is a real rule change here for just this kind of a play situation. In 2016 the period should not have been extended, now team B gets the choice and will likely elect to extend the period.

[Kalle]

There's also a S/B season quiz question from 2021 for a very similar situation, see http://www.refstripes.com/forum/index.php?topic=15681.0 #5 - I think Elvis has the correct answer.

[ElvisLives]

It sounds to me like this should be explicitly stated somewhere and not just left to "it sounds to me" because it won't sound like that to everybody, especially to that crew that got suspended over it the last time.

Anyway, I hope I've made my point by now... 

To be clear, the crew that got suspended was suspended because they allowed a down to be played in an extended period, which the team behind in score used to - of course - score a touchdown. At the time, the rule specifically stated that the period would NOT be extended if the penalty statement included LOD (which it did). There was no option, either way. The period should not have been extended. That is a "catastrophic error," and anyone making such a mistake should expect to get a significant penalty. That doesn't make them bad. Just human. I'll bet they are all still working today, and doing well.

As a result of that situation, however, the rule was re-visited, and somebody realized that, unlike like in that specific instance, there are situations in which the offended team might actually want the period to be extended. So, they modified the rule to specify, "At the option of the offended team, the period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the statement of the penalty includes loss of down." So, by today's rule, the offended team in that specific case would absolutely want the period to be extended, so they would have one more attempt to score for themselves (which they should not have been allowed at that time).

That takes very unusual - indeed, rare - circumstances for this 'option' to be exercised. But, we know it has happened, and could happen again.

But, to answer the original question of this thread, yes, Team B can be given a down in an extended period, when the penalty and other circumstances allow for it. But, it will take an LOD penalty on 4th down to make it happen. And a free kick after a safety by penalty in an extended period is also possible.

[ElvisLives]

And let’s also be clear that “loss of down” only applies to the team that put the ball in play by snap, and there has been no change of team possession when the foul occurs. LOD means the “loss of the right to repeat a down.” Although it doesn’t specifically say so, that actually means “…loss of the right to repeat a down of a series.” There is no numbered down of a series to repeat after a change of team possession.

Example:
1/10,A-40. A11 throws a forward pass from the A-42, which is intercepted by B99 at the B-40, where he advances to the 50 and attempts to throw a backward pass to B88, but the pass is first touched by B88 at the A-47, where B88 catches the pass and runs OB.
Ruling: If Team B were to accept the penalty against Team A for their illegal forward pass, Team A would be penalized 5 yards from the spot of the pass and the next down would be second, i.e., A, 2/13, A-37. But, obviously, Team B would decline Team A’s penalty, to keep the ball. Team A would accept the penalty for Team B’s illegal forward pass, and Team B would be penalized 5 yards from the spot of the pass, taking the ball to the B-45, where Team B would next snap the ball, 1/10.

In that example, Team A was in possession during a series of downs, so, if their penalty had been accepted, they would be denied the opportunity to repeat that numbered down (as Gerald Austin would announce, “The down counts.”)
Quite differently, Team B was not in possession during a series of downs when they committed their foul, so there was no numbered down for them to lose.
Sadly, I actually know of a game in which Team B started a possession with 2/10, because the referee/crew mistakenly concluded that LOD applied to Team B, too (and Team B had thrown a forward pass during a kickoff runback). Oops. (No, not me.🫢)

[bossman72]

Sadly, I actually know of a game in which Team B started a possession with 2/10, because the referee/crew mistakenly concluded that LOD applied to Team B, too (and Team B had thrown a forward pass during a kickoff runback). Oops. (No, not me.🫢)

That crew probably caused the dumb wording on IFP being LOD "if by Team A prior to a change of possession".  Then that muddies the water when Team B throws an IFP when time expires and whether or not we extend the period.

Loss of down doesn't mean the current down minus 1.  It means that the down counts.  So on a change of possession where Team B throws an IFP, we enforce the foul and count the down.  Well at the end of the down we set up 1st and 10, so there's nothing to do.

Then Rogers had to make a bastardized interpretation saying "the statement of the penalty includes LOD" to make this play right (even though it explicitly says "if by Team A").

[ElvisLives]

That crew probably caused the dumb wording on IFP being LOD "if by Team A prior to a change of possession".  Then that muddies the water when Team B throws an IFP when time expires and whether or not we extend the period.

Loss of down doesn't mean the current down minus 1.  It means that the down counts.  So on a change of possession where Team B throws an IFP, we enforce the foul and count the down.  Well at the end of the down we set up 1st and 10, so there's nothing to do.

Then Rogers had to make a bastardized interpretation saying "the statement of the penalty includes LOD" to make this play right (even though it explicitly says "if by Team A").

In the original penalty statement, because there was a true LOD invoked by acceptance of the penalty, Team A is not given the benefit of repeating the numbered down, so the period ends. No option. End of story. Then, along came this (4th down) situation in which, due to the LOD component, Team B would be awarded possession by acceptance of the penalty. In 2016, the rule very clearly directed that the period is not extended when LOD is part of the penalty, regardless of who might, officially, have possession of the ball. Unfortunately, the crew erred and allowed the period to be extended for Team B to play a down, with game changing consequences. Although an incorrect ruling at the time, it caused the Rules Committee to re-evaluate the penalty, and they decided that the offended team, in these cases ought to be able to choose to extend, or not extend, the period. So, now, not only does Team A lose the right to repeat the previous down, but, if it was 4th down, Team B is awarded possession, and may - at their option - extend the period for an untimed down.
What’s the message? Don’t cheat.

[bossman72]

In the original penalty statement, because there was a true LOD invoked by acceptance of the penalty, Team A is not given the benefit of repeating the numbered down, so the period ends. No option. End of story. Then, along came this (4th down) situation in which, due to the LOD component, Team B would be awarded possession by acceptance of the penalty. In 2016, the rule very clearly directed that the period is not extended when LOD is part of the penalty, regardless of who might, officially, have possession of the ball. Unfortunately, the crew erred and allowed the period to be extended for Team B to play a down, with game changing consequences. Although an incorrect ruling at the time, it caused the Rules Committee to re-evaluate the penalty, and they decided that the offended team, in these cases ought to be able to choose to extend, or not extend, the period. So, now, not only does Team A lose the right to repeat the previous down, but, if it was 4th down, Team B is awarded possession, and may - at their option - extend the period for an untimed down.
What’s the message? Don’t cheat.

Right, but I was more referring to your example of a crew starting a series with 2nd and 10 and not the OSU/CMU game.

[ElvisLives]

Right, but I was more referring to your example of a crew starting a series with 2nd and 10 and not the OSU/CMU game.

Oh. Well, that was a high school crew back in the 80s. So, no, Adams/Redding, et al, never knew about that. 😕

[Stinterp]

Doesn't AR 3-2-3 VIII cover this?

[ElvisLives]

Doesn't AR 3-2-3 VIII cover this?

Well, it doesn’t specifically address the question of 4th down, and what happens if Team B accepts a penalty against Team A that includes LOD in the penalty statement. We are left to our own ‘logic’ to arrive at the conclusion that, yes, Team B would, officially, be awarded a new series in the extended period, albeit for only one down. Team B would put the ball in play by snap, for one down in the extended period.
And that’s the essence of this discussion. Some folks would like to see something in the rule or in the AR that specifically addresses the 4th down situation. That wouldn’t hurt, I agree. At AR 3-2-3-VIII, a simple note at the end of the rulings, like, “Note: If the loss of down foul occurred on 4th down, and the penalty is accepted, Team B, at their option, may put the ball in play by a snap in the extended period.”
John Adams was a pretty strict editor of the rules when he was Sec-Ed, and I believe he would say the rules are fine as they are. Nothing says that Team B would/could not snap the ball in the extended period.
One rule puts LOD in the penalty statement.
Another rule says that Team B is awarded a series when Team A has failed to earn a first down at the end of fourth down, which is what would happen, if Team B accepts the penalty.
Another rule says that the period is extended when a penalty for a live ball foul is accepted, which is what would happen.
So, Team B is awarded a series. The period is extended (if Team B so chooses). Team B snaps the ball in the extended period. All within the rules, as written.

[dammitbobby]

This may just be semantics, but are they awarded a new series, or a single down? I know it's just a single play, but when we say they are  awarded a new series - which by common definition is more than one - it could be confusing for someone who comes across this.