RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: sczeebra on April 17, 2015, 10:46:40 AM
-
Change of possession(punt), then an illegal forward (touchdown) pass by R. Time runs out in the period. Do we extend the period?
Same as when A reaches the line to gain then tosses the TD pass as time runs out.
Considering the loss of down aspect of a penalty has no significance(5:2:2).
-
For the purpose of the rule, it does. 3-3-4-b(1).." .fouls that SPECIFY a loss of down "..doesn't mean there has to be a down to lose.
-
Thanks for being out there Ralph.
-
That was an editorial change a few years ago. The rule used to read such that there had to be a loss of down for the period not to be extended. That was never the intention, it's just that change of possession plays got lost in there somewhere. Thus the change in the wording to "fouls that specify a loss of down".
-
The origin of this rule change was prompted by an illegal forward pass after change of possession. Several years ago this occurred in a Louisiana state championship game :
Team A scored with only seconds to go ,to go up by 2....
(1) The ensuing kickoff turns into a "rugby scrum";
(2) Time expires;
(3) R1, about to be tackled @ K's 15, hurls an illegal forward pass toward K's end zone;
(4) R2 catches said pass;
(5) ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag ^flag = more flags than a 4th of July parade;
(6) z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ confer = R gets an untimed down;
(7) Enter Hans, a Swedish transfer student, he booms a 37 yard game winning field goal;
(8) Hans & the Bayou queen are off to the prom;
(9) z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ are off to the parking lot >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( >:( :'(
This rule change prevented this from reoccurring and ,as AB mentioned, had to be tweaked to indicate that there doesn't have to be a down to lose. This could also occur without a COP...IE... 4th & 5 @ 50, A runs to B's 30 and throws an IFP = A 1st & 10 @ B's35.
Monday's non-football trivia tester :
Does Louisiana have more counties than Maine ????
Does Louisiana have more counties than your state ????
-
Louisiana doesn't have any counties!
It has parishes. So Louisiana has fewer "counties" than all other states but one. Which one?
-
Delaware only has three counties, so it's the state with the fewest.
-
Louisiana doesn't have any counties!
It has parishes. So Louisiana has fewer "counties" than all other states but one. Which one?
Alaska does not call its counties by that name, instead they are considered boroughs. Louisiana and Alaska both still have operational county governments. According to the National Association of Counties, only Connecticut and Rhode Island do not have operational county governments. Even though these states are divided into regions known as counties, no functioning government exists for the regions. The least populated county in the United States is Loving County, Texas, while the most populated is Los Angeles County, Calif.
-
Alaska has 19 boroughs, and 1 "unorganized borough", which is divided into 10 census areas for the purpose of the Federal government. While the boroughs act somewhat like counties (and in some cases, cities), the unorganized borough has no central government at all.
Georgia has 159 counties, which is insane and incredibly wasteful. It's second only to Texas, which is 2.5 times our population and 4 times our size. We have 182 different school systems. Our education dollars could be spent so much more efficiently if we had half that number.
-
Louisiana doesn't have any counties!
It has parishes. So Louisiana has fewer "counties" than all other states but one. Which one?
AB wins the Kewpie doll aWaRd and I learned something :o. I knew New York City had boroughs, but was totally aware that Alaska did also. I trust that the NYC boroughs are more populated and I also trust that Alaska doesn't have a baseball team as despised as them there Yankees. nAnA
-
I trust that the NYC boroughs are more populated
All but Staten Island have more than the entire state of Alaska. In fact, the others have twice or more of the entire state.
-
I'm not sure why there was a lot of confusion before. Loss of down means loss of the right to replay the down.
So in Ralph's play, when the IFP was thrown, you enforce the foul and you don't get the right to replay the down like you would have if there was an IBB or OH or something similar.
Editorial change just made no question about it.