RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: BetweenTheLines on May 25, 2026, 08:40:23 AM
-
What were the reasonings behind the editorial changes in 8-2-2,3,4,5? Were they made to give the offended team the option to carry these fouls into overtime? If so, why then no change to the definition of succeeding spot?
-
What were the reasonings behind the editorial changes in 8-2-2,3,4,5? Were they made to give the offended team the option to carry these fouls into overtime? If so, why then no change to the definition of succeeding spot?
Can you (or anyone) post the rule change or a screen shot? We don't have our books yet in PA.
-
I hope the attachment comes through!
-
Typical brainiacs on the editorial committee. They literally don't know the rules.
The try and the succeeding spot are the SAME THING on a normal touchdown scoring play. WTF?!
-
Typical brainiacs on the editorial committee. They literally don't know the rules.
The try and the succeeding spot are the SAME THING on a normal touchdown scoring play. WTF?!
I think 2-41-10 saves them (unless they edited that too) - "When a foul occurs during a down in which a touchdown is scored, as in Rules 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4 and 8-2-5, the succeeding spot may, at the option of the offended team, be the subsequent kickoff"
Now, I would argue that this does NOT change the overtime options. The succeeding spot is the try OR 2-41-10 allows the kickoff, which is there not one in overtime. I think this editorial change fixed the wording glitch that 2-41-10 said the succeeding spot may be the kickoff, but in the 8-2-x rules, it didn't actually say the "succeeding spot" was an option, it just explicitly listed the two options.
I agree with bossman that this is now redundant in 8-2-x, since "a. On the try" is included in "b. On the succeeding spot", so one can choose Option B by choosing Option A.
-
If addressing the problem with overtime was the intent of the editorial change it seems to me that "subsequent down" would have worked better than succeeding spot.
-
I don't think this was done with any thought of overtime. It seems like somebody pointed out "Hey, 2-41-10 defines the succeeding spot in relation to the 8-2-x rules, but you never use the phrase succeeding spot in 8-2-x" and the editorial committee made this change. Succeeding spot is a defined phrase in Rule 2, "subsequent down" isn't, so you'd just be inviting more confusion by introducing a new term.
I would hope (and maybe Ralph can confirm) that a purely editorial change shouldn't alter the interpretation of a rule, just clarify wording. Since it couldn't bridge to OT before, it still can't now.
-
That's exactly what we are being told here in SC that this change is so that these fouls can be bridged to OT. Not only from the 4th quarter to OT but in between overtime periods as well. As far as my rationale for the term "subsequent down", we've had the terms subsequent and down for a long time. The subsequent kickoff is in fact a subsequent down. Now you have the ability to snap the ball. I love this part of the season, we get a chance to debate what the debaters have already debated.
-
As written/amended, I don't see support for bridging fouls to OT. After a touchdown, the succeeding spot is the try, however 2-41-10 allows for penalties to be enforced on the subsequent kickoff instead. There still remains no language that allows the first play of overtime to be the succeeding spot after a touchdown.
If you're being told to bridge to OT, I'm not going to dispute that, but that's not what the rule says.
I don't believe a purely editorial change is actually debated, since they shouldn't be changing any rules. The editorial committee just does what it wants, it seems.
-
Bridging to overtime is a real stretch given the wording. If the rules makers really wanted an option to be 1st play in OT all they had to do would be add an option c. On the first play in OT. Also agree that what is an editorial change is not supposed to change the rule and bridging to OT IMHO is in fact a rule change.
-
Has anyone heard anything definitive on this from the NF?
I have two dependable sources that believe this does mean they could be carried over into and in overtime periods. A couple others don't think so.
The Redding guide has put out an errata sheet for the 2026 book which says they can carry over. See the attached and here's the last entry.
p. 168, 1st col. Last para:
NOTE: An editorial revision to 8-2-2 thru 8-2-5 changed “subsequent kickoff” to “subsequent spot” which
allows a penalty to be carried over in situations when the succeeding spot is not a kickoff. The primary
impact is when there is a touchdown on the last timed down in regulation play and a successful try results
in overtime. Additionally, a penalty can be carried over within an overtime period or from one overtime
period to the next overtime period.
EXAMPLE 11-72: Team A trails Team B by seven points with two seconds left in the game. As time
expires, A21 scores a touchdown and B42 pulls him to the ground with a horse-collar tackle. RULING:
Team B’s penalty could enforced on the try or Team A could opt to have it enforced at the start of overtime
if the try ties the game.
-
Has anyone heard anything definitive on this from the NF?
I have two dependable sources that believe this does mean they could be carried over into and in overtime periods. A couple others don't think so.
The Redding guide has put out an errata sheet for the 2026 book which says they can carry over. See the attached and here's the last entry.
p. 168, 1st col. Last para:
NOTE: An editorial revision to 8-2-2 thru 8-2-5 changed “subsequent kickoff” to “subsequent spot” which
allows a penalty to be carried over in situations when the succeeding spot is not a kickoff. The primary
impact is when there is a touchdown on the last timed down in regulation play and a successful try results
in overtime. Additionally, a penalty can be carried over within an overtime period or from one overtime
period to the next overtime period.
EXAMPLE 11-72: Team A trails Team B by seven points with two seconds left in the game. As time
expires, A21 scores a touchdown and B42 pulls him to the ground with a horse-collar tackle. RULING:
Team B’s penalty could enforced on the try or Team A could opt to have it enforced at the start of overtime
if the try ties the game.
I honestly do not see the wording in the rule that allows this to be true. People may want it to be true, and are trying to wish it into existence, but it's just not there.
Without a penalty involved, after a touchdown the succeeding spot is the try and only the try. When a foul occurs during a touchdown scoring play, 2-41-10 allows the succeeding spot to be the subsequent kickoff - and that rule explicitly says "subsequent kickoff" still, not "the first down after the try".
If the intent of this edit was to make that change, this should have been a rules committee vote (not an editorial decision) and announced in the same press release as the other rules changes. To put a fine point on it, I think Redding is incorrect in their interpretation.
-
The editorial change in says succeeding spot. there is no mention of KO.
2.41.10 The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kick... Rules 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4, 8-2-5 the succeeding spot may, at the option of the offended team be subsequent KO
RESOLVING TIED GAMES
5-1-1 covers the succeeding spot carry over
3-1-1 SITUATION B covers the succeeding spot carry over
it would appear the rules committee have covered the options
-
The editorial change in says succeeding spot. there is no mention of KO.
2.41.10 The succeeding spot is where the ball would next be snapped or free kick... Rules 8-2-2, 8-2-3, 8-2-4, 8-2-5 the succeeding spot may, at the option of the offended team be subsequent KO
RESOLVING TIED GAMES
5-1-1 covers the succeeding spot carry over
3-1-1 SITUATION B covers the succeeding spot carry over
it would appear the rules committee have covered the options
It does so appear!
-
I just got forwarded the amended Rules Interpretations from my regional supervisor, and others may have gotten it as well.
Long story short, the official stance is that anything related to overtime is a state adoption, including bridging a foul to overtime. Therefore, your state may allow it, but my state may not (hypothetically as my state has not yet released specific guidance).
Fun times ahead!
-
I just got forwarded the amended Rules Interpretations from my regional supervisor, and others may have gotten it as well.
Long story short, the official stance is that anything related to overtime is a state adoption, including bridging a foul to overtime. Therefore, your state may allow it, but my state may not (hypothetically as my state has not yet released specific guidance).
Fun times ahead!
Not sure that the " .... anything related to overtime is a state adoption ..." is technically correct since under NFHS rules overtime, for rules enforcement purposes, is considered part of the 4th period. Has that changed?
-
Not sure that the " .... anything related to overtime is a state adoption ..." is technically correct since under NFHS rules overtime, for rules enforcement purposes, is considered part of the 4th period. Has that changed?
The amended ruling for Case Play 8.2.2 Sit C includes:
Procedures regarding overtime (if any) are adopted by the state association. State association consideration may determine that the play should be treated as a normal in-game play and allow for the penalty to be enforced from the succeeding spot in overtime. Those procedures could also state that only dead-ball or unsportsmanlike fouls after the final play in regulation carry to overtime, or some other variant for those last plays in regulation. [...] therefore, state association overtime procedures should clearly state whether or not the option can be given to penalize the foul on the first play of overtime per 10-4 NOTE, or if enforcing the penalty may only be done on the try.
That may have been slight hyperbole, but for this issue it feels like that's what they're leaning into at least.
-
Looks like they just put something out. (attached)
-
Looks like they just put something out. (attached)
Wow, nothing to do with the Rule 8 editorial changes that you’re talking about; but the 2.15.2 Situation (c) rewrite is poorly written. He’s in the air after possessing a pass, while still in the air at the 3, he’s hit and “fumbles” the ball? And they call that a fumble forward oob? Because no way is that correct.
Or are they changing the play to a running play? And in that case, why would they group it with the other sub-situations? That’s dumb and confusing.
Or maybe he comes down and completes the catch, then goes back up in the air and is hit and fumbles?
Maybe I’m dense, but to me that’s just not good writing.
-
Wow, nothing to do with the Rule 8 editorial changes that you’re talking about; but the 2.15.2 Situation (c) rewrite is poorly written. He’s in the air after possessing a pass, while still in the air at the 3, he’s hit and “fumbles” the ball? And they call that a fumble forward oob? Because no way is that correct.
Or are they changing the play to a running play? And in that case, why would they group it with the other sub-situations? That’s dumb and confusing.
Or maybe he comes down and completes the catch, then goes back up in the air and is hit and fumbles?
Maybe I’m dense, but to me that’s just not good writing.
The 2-4-1 definition of a catch doesn't require the player to "land" if his forward progress is stopped by a player who is inbounds themselves. The catch is completed when A1 is contacted in the air by B1, at which point he is allowed to fumble the ball by rule.
In reality, if A1 loses possession of the ball in midair after contact, we should probably rule that he didn't have full possession of the ball and it was incomplete. However, in hypothetical case play land, it becomes another example of a forward fumble out of bounds.
-
The 2-4-1 definition of a catch doesn't require the player to "land" if his forward progress is stopped by a player who is inbounds themselves. The catch is completed when A1 is contacted in the air by B1, at which point he is allowed to fumble the ball by rule.
In reality, if A1 loses possession of the ball in midair after contact, we should probably rule that he didn't have full possession of the ball and it was incomplete. However, in hypothetical case play land, it becomes another example of a forward fumble out of bounds.
Interesting, thanks!
That's wild that they consider the pass complete, but progress not stopped and therefore a fumble possible.
I no longer try to figure out or outguess either the Fed or NCAA. Too many grey hairs already!!
-
The 2-4-1 definition of a catch doesn't require the player to "land" if his forward progress is stopped by a player who is inbounds themselves. The catch is completed when A1 is contacted in the air by B1, at which point he is allowed to fumble the ball by rule.
In reality, if A1 loses possession of the ball in midair after contact, we should probably rule that he didn't have full possession of the ball and it was incomplete. However, in hypothetical case play land, it becomes another example of a forward fumble out of bounds.
We can strongly disagree here in that the catch is not completed until we judge that A has actual possession and control of the ball. That cannot occur immediately upon contact by B but at some time after that initial contact. Also, IMHO 2-4-1 also says that if we determine that A has secured that possession and is under control of and being "carried back" by B that we by rule at that point have a DB forward progress call.
-
We can strongly disagree here in that the catch is not completed until we judge that A has actual possession and control of the ball. That cannot occur immediately upon contact by B but at some time after that initial contact. Also, IMHO 2-4-1 also says that if we determine that A has secured that possession and is under control of and being "carried back" by B that we by rule at that point have a DB forward progress call.
In the real world, I'm not disputing any of that. I was just explaining how the case play makes technical legal sense, even if it's never a scenario we would realistically see.
Edit -- To elaborate slightly, how many case plays are there that are predicated on a clear-as-day new force on the ball, especially on a loose ball? That is just being stipulated for rule purposes so that the final ruling is relevant. In reality, how many times have you ever ruled that a new force was put on a loose ball? It's unlikely that you'd ever really see it, but the case play is there to explain what to do in that unlikely scenario. Similarly, it's unlikely that we would rule this as a legitimate catch and fumble, *but if it was*, this case play describes how to handle the situation.
-
You can't take a foul by the defense to OT on the last timed down of the 4th quarter. It would have to be taken on the try, if accepted, because you don't know if you are going to have an overtime session. It could only carry over to OT if the foul occurred during the successful try, which forces overtime.
-
You can't take a foul by the defense to OT on the last timed down of the 4th quarter. It would have to be taken on the try, if accepted, because you don't know if you are going to have an overtime session. It could only carry over to OT if the foul occurred during the successful try, which forces overtime.
Yes, that is what the rule was. However, if you read the just published interpretation (see bossman's post for the link, and my previous post for the relevant quote), the guidance is that states are free to adopt any overtime procedure they want, including how to handle enforcing such fouls, and they can choose to enforce on the first play of overtime.
-
If there was a foul by B on a TD on the last play of the game that resulted in a tie, wouldn't most coaches want the extra yardage on PAT to win the game in reg. time in lieu of OT ?
-
If there was a foul by B on a TD on the last play of the game that resulted in a tie, wouldn't most coaches want the extra yardage on PAT to win the game in reg. time in lieu of OT ?
I'll answer my own question, that came to me while walking my new pup...
A scores TD to tie as clock reads 0:00 ^good
B ^flag for PF
A has an A+ place kicker ,used to kicking PATs from 10 yard line. :bOW
If kicker fails , tack ^flag foul on OT , they would have the ball @ B's 5 or B would have the
ball at 25.
I should walk our pup more often to think of useless stuff 8]. PS: If you are an octogenarian , I suggest choosing a goldfish for a pet in lieu of a pup pi1eOn
-
I should walk our pup more often to think of useless stuff 8] . PS: If you are an octogenarian , I suggest choosing a goldfish for a pet in lieu of a pup pi1eOn
But Ralph, goldfish don't cuddle very well! ;D
-
You can't take a foul by the defense to OT on the last timed down of the 4th quarter. It would have to be taken on the try, if accepted, because you don't know if you are going to have an overtime session. It could only carry over to OT if the foul occurred during the successful try, which forces overtime.
PA just issued an interp that we can carry the foul over to the pending OT period.
-
You can't take a foul by the defense to OT on the last timed down of the 4th quarter. It would have to be taken on the try, if accepted, because you don't know if you are going to have an overtime session. It could only carry over to OT if the foul occurred during the successful try, which forces overtime.
This is the obviously intelligent and correct answer which can never be assumed to be correct when discussing matters coming from the NFHS Football Rules Editorial Committee!
No rule is if your state believes in maybes and whatevers you can pretend there is another play before you know so, so the foul can go that hypothetical play that may not ever exist. Or if you state appreciates reality and common sense, it still can't.
-
My understanding is NC will not carry over to the pending OT period. That was verbal, don't get much written from NCHSAA. hEaDbAnG
-
Remember, guys (gender neutral) , Rule 1-7-9 provides state rights to design their own overtime. The editorial change was just to clairfy that fouls on the last play can be carried over.
-
This is the obviously intelligent and correct answer which can never be assumed to be correct when discussing matters coming from the NFHS Football Rules Editorial Committee!
No rule is if your state believes in maybes and whatevers you can pretend there is another play before you know so, so the foul can go that hypothetical play that may not ever exist. Or if you state appreciates reality and common sense, it still can't.
I don't understand this take.
I understand the way the rule had been interpreted before, and I'm not arguing that is what is says. However, why does it feel that you are against enforcing the foul in OT? As the rule states, a foul on a TD play can skip over the try and be enforced on the following play (99.99999% of the time, a free kick), so why are you opposed to that 0.00001% of the time of it being the first play of overtime instead?
This can become a strategic gamble by the offended team, if they miss the try and the game doesn't go to OT, well, they lose out on enforcing the penalty as if they had just declined it. It's not like they get to enforce it on the opening kick off of the next game or replay the try with the penalty enforced this time.
I would even argue that insisting on this might even encourage "bad" fouls (flagrantly obvious, not flagrant as ejectable). A7 wants to throw a pass into the end zone, B56 just two hand grabs star receiver A81 to prevent the catch, so A7 throws to A82 instead. If the catch isn't made, okay, A gets another shot, but B gets another shot at stopping them as well. If the catch is made anyway, A now has the option of either screwing up their routine extra point or declining the penalty entirely. There's essentially no downside to B fouling here.
Also, the game tying (not winning) touchdown *as the last timed down* is also exceedingly rare. I'm sure it happens, but I've been doing this for almost 15 years now and I've never seen it -- lots of last second TDs, and even last timed down TDs, but none of those resulted in a tie score. We're not talking about a major rule change that is going to fundamentally reshape strategy. I'm sure some people will respond with that time it happened to them, which will demonstrate the saying "The exception that proves the rule" -- also, don't forget that foul by B during the play.
-
Remember, guys (gender neutral) , Rule 1-7-9 provides state rights to design their own overtime. The editorial change was just to clairfy that fouls on the last play can be carried over.
So that raises an interesting issue since the 2 states that I work (MA and RI) do have their "own OT rules" but do not address anything that happens before moving to the OT/extra period. Based on that, IMHO I would say because of the new wording in the NFHS rules that unless the individual states rules EXPLICITY say that "carryovers" are prohibited, then they must be allowed, since it's 100% clear (well almost) that the current NFHS wording, as garbled as it is, allows the carryover to OT.
-
So that raises an interesting issue since the 2 states that I work (MA and RI) do have their "own OT rules" but do not address anything that happens before moving to the OT/extra period. Based on that, IMHO I would say because of the new wording in the NFHS rules that unless the individual states rules EXPLICITY say that "carryovers" are prohibited, then they must be allowed, since it's 100% clear (well almost) that the current NFHS wording, as garbled as it is, allows the carryover to OT.
Where does it say that?
All I see is that states are free to set whatever rules they want regarding OT, and they should include specific guidance one way or another. There's liberal use of the word "may" in there.
If they don't provide specific guidance, I would argue that the previous interpretation should hold - succeeding spot after a field goal could be first play of OT, and after a TD is the try or kickoff with no kickoff in OT.
-
But Ralph, goldfish don't cuddle very well! ;D
But they are tastier in lieu of food shortage ;D ;D
-
Where does it say that?
All I see is that states are free to set whatever rules they want regarding OT, and they should include specific guidance one way or another. There's liberal use of the word "may" in there.
If they don't provide specific guidance, I would argue that the previous interpretation should hold - succeeding spot after a field goal could be first play of OT, and after a TD is the try or kickoff with no kickoff in OT.
That's exactly what I said??? ???
-
That's exactly what I said??? ???
I would say because of the new wording in the NFHS rules that unless the individual states rules EXPLICITY say that "carryovers" are prohibited, then they must be allowed
I was saying the opposite of that - there is no place that states carryovers must be allowed unless explicitly forbidden.
To summarize:
1) The old rule (and rule interpretation) was that a penalty on a last-timed-play TD had to be enforced on the try because there was no succeeding kickoff.
2) This is an editorial change, not a rules change, so the default option should remain the same
3) The editorial change replaced "subsequent kickoff" with "succeeding spot" in Rule 8
4) The definition of "succeeding spot" in Rule 2 allows for the spot to be the "subsequent kickoff" for a penalty on a TD scoring play, since the succeeding spot after a TD is the try. This STILL says "subsequent kickoff". There was no edit to Rule 2.
There is no wording in the rule book that explicitly allows carryovers after a touchdown.
The new interpretation sent out is the only place where that is mentioned, and it explicitly says that states "may" adopt whatever rules they want regarding overtime. A strict, literal reading of the rule book does NOT include carryover possibility. So without a state adoption saying that you CAN, the default should be that you CAN NOT.
-
I was saying the opposite of that - there is no place that states carryovers must be allowed unless explicitly forbidden.
To summarize:
1) The old rule (and rule interpretation) was that a penalty on a last-timed-play TD had to be enforced on the try because there was no succeeding kickoff.
- Agree on that
2) This is an editorial change, not a rules change, so the default option should remain the same
- Except that the specific "edited" wording now clearly says otherwise so in reality it is not an editorial change
3) The editorial change replaced "subsequent kickoff" with "succeeding spot" in Rule 8
- By no one's definition, except the wizards at NFHS, is that an editorial change. Succeeding spot has an explicit definition in Rule 2 that based on the new memo must allow carryovers to OT as CLEARLY written. (2026 NFHS Football Rules Interpretations memo).
4) The definition of "succeeding spot" in Rule 2 allows for the spot to be the "subsequent kickoff" for a penalty on a TD scoring play, since the succeeding spot after a TD is the try. This STILL says "subsequent kickoff". There was no edit to Rule 2.
- But Rule 8, and the referenced 2026 rules memo say otherwise.
There is no wording in the rule book that explicitly allows carryovers after a touchdown. - There is now with the new 2026 memo which by NFHS definition is an integral part of the rules.
The new interpretation sent out is the only place where that is mentioned, and it explicitly says that states "may" adopt whatever rules they want regarding overtime. A strict, literal reading of the rule book does NOT include carryover possibility. So without a state adoption saying that you CAN, the default should be that you CAN NOT. - We'll disagree on that, since we're being told that the state OT rules will have to EXPLICITLY prohibit the carryover since based on that memo, it is now part of the rule/case book set.
We are also being told that NFHS has acknowledged that the rule book will need to be "corrected" since these "clarifications" came too late to meet the 2026 book printing deadlines, hence the late memo. Maybe Ralph would like to clarify this??? ???
-
We are also being told that NFHS has acknowledged that the rule book will need to be "corrected" since these "clarifications" came too late to meet the 2026 book printing deadlines, hence the late memo. Maybe Ralph would like to clarify this??? ???
In Maine, you can carry the penalty enforcement over to overtime. SEZ' ME tR:oLl What happens next year will be someone elses's worry. Your state can rule on OT as they wish.
-
I don't understand this take.
I understand the way the rule had been interpreted before, and I'm not arguing that is what is says. However, why does it feel that you are against enforcing the foul in OT? As the rule states, a foul on a TD play can skip over the try and be enforced on the following play (99.99999% of the time, a free kick), so why are you opposed to that 0.00001% of the time of it being the first play of overtime instead?
This can become a strategic gamble by the offended team, if they miss the try and the game doesn't go to OT, well, they lose out on enforcing the penalty as if they had just declined it. It's not like they get to enforce it on the opening kick off of the next game or replay the try with the penalty enforced this time.
I would even argue that insisting on this might even encourage "bad" fouls (flagrantly obvious, not flagrant as ejectable). A7 wants to throw a pass into the end zone, B56 just two hand grabs star receiver A81 to prevent the catch, so A7 throws to A82 instead. If the catch isn't made, okay, A gets another shot, but B gets another shot at stopping them as well. If the catch is made anyway, A now has the option of either screwing up their routine extra point or declining the penalty entirely. There's essentially no downside to B fouling here.
Also, the game tying (not winning) touchdown *as the last timed down* is also exceedingly rare. I'm sure it happens, but I've been doing this for almost 15 years now and I've never seen it -- lots of last second TDs, and even last timed down TDs, but none of those resulted in a tie score. We're not talking about a major rule change that is going to fundamentally reshape strategy. I'm sure some people will respond with that time it happened to them, which will demonstrate the saying "The exception that proves the rule" -- also, don't forget that foul by B during the play.
Because you are allowing an option for a hypothetical play that doesn't exist at the time the option is chosen. That makes no sense. How about you just carry it over to a playoff game IF you play again and can use it??
-
Because you are allowing an option for a hypothetical play that doesn't exist at the time the option is chosen. That makes no sense. How about you just carry it over to a playoff game IF you play again and can use it??
That's an absurd argument, and you know it. Nobody has ever suggested that the penalty could be enforced in a different game. Sometimes penalties just cannot be enforced because games have to end. What happens if K kicks a game winning field goal as time expires, but R roughs the kicker on the play. K has the option to accept the score and enforce the penalty at the succeeding spot (8-4-3b) -- where is the succeeding spot? There is none. The game is over, you cannot enforce the penalty.
It becomes a strategic choice by A - if you choose to take it on the first play of overtime, but the result of the try means there is no overtime, then you effectively declined enforcing the penalty because there is no longer a succeeding spot.
-
It becomes a strategic choice by A - if you choose to take it on the first play of overtime, but the result of the try means there is no overtime, then you effectively declined enforcing the penalty because there is NEVER WAS a succeeding spot.
Fixed it for you.
-
Fixed it for you.
I like the original there is "no longer a succeeding spot" language. That is in fact the most accurate description at the time the enforcement option is offered by the R to team A.
-
Fixed it for you.
Other than being resistant to change, you still have never explained why you're opposed to it. What would it harm if it was allowed?
Also, what if the scenario was the other way around -- lets say it's 20-14 B, and A throws a TD pass as time expires, and B hits A late to try and knock the ball loose, but since it was late that's irrelevant (and say A hangs on anyway, so doubly moot). It's now 20-20. The game IS tied with no time on the clock. It's not potentially tied depending on the outcome of the try. A wants to kick the try from the 3 like they've practiced all year, but doesn't want B to "get away" with the late hit... so if they miss the try, they want to enforce the penalty on the first play of OT. If they make the try, they win the game and don't care anymore. Why are you opposed to allowing this as an option?
And your answer cannot be because that's not what the rule says. I'm asking why you're opposed to letting the rule allow this.
-
I like the original there is "no longer a succeeding spot" language. That is in fact the most accurate description at the time the enforcement option is offered by the R to team A.
But there is no existing spot unless the extra point is made. So no longer a succeeding spot is factually wrong. It didn't disappear after they decided, it literally never existed. So it couldn't be less accurate.
-
But there is no existing spot unless the extra point is made. So no longer a succeeding spot is factually wrong. It didn't disappear after they decided, it literally never existed. So it couldn't be less accurate.
Wow, you're a bit lost. The revised rule and the revised guidance are CRYSTAL CLEAR on this. The succeeding spot, potentially being the 1st play in the extra period, does not "go away" until the current play has ended. That's 100% clear and playing wordsmith here IMHO is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.
-
Wow, you're a bit lost. The revised rule and the revised guidance are CRYSTAL CLEAR on this. The succeeding spot, potentially being the 1st play in the extra period, does not "go away" until the current play has ended. That's 100% clear and playing wordsmith here IMHO is VERY COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.
I'm far from lost or misguided and I know full well the fiction the Editorial Committee wants you to operate on. Its created by very non-productive wordsmithing in fact. But it is based on a false premise you can't seem to grasp. OT is not automatically there like you seem to believe. So you can carry it over to something that doesn't exist but it ONLY starts to exist if the score becomes tied with zeroes on the clock which hasn't happened obviously before the try.
hEaDbAnG
It seems like a simple enough concept even for you to grasp. But alas, apparently not.
-
OT is not automatically there like you seem to believe.
You are 100% missing the point here. Until such time as the GAME ENDS and the score is NOT TIED, the possibility of OT is one of the enforcement options that by rule must be offered to the HC coach when the circumstances indicate that with a converted try, OT will in fact continue the game. Agreed that this is contingent on the specific OT "rules" that can be controlled by individual state mandate, but the NFHS rules are 100% (if that's possible) clear. OT is, from a NFHS rules standpoint, simply to be a considered an extension of the 4th period, with the specific OT mechanics dictated by either the default NFHS guidelines, or the superseding state rules as adopted.
UPDATE: Massachusetts (MIAA) has just posted 2026 revised OT procedures and will be using the verbatim NFHS language for OT. Fouls occurring during a score on the last play of the 4th period will be enforced on the try or the succeeding spot in OT. We have been instructed to carefully offer the options to the HC as enforcement of carryover fouls into OT will be "different" based on who wins the toss and the selection of offense or defense. MIAA memo is attached for your reading pleasure.
-
There was a lengthy discussion with Mass (MIAA) to stay with existing wording, however they (MIAA the governing body) went with the change.
The word is the digital case book has the changed wording. Does anyone have a digital copy to share?
-
There was a lengthy discussion with Mass (MIAA) to stay with existing wording, however they (MIAA the governing body) went with the change.
The word is the digital case book has the changed wording. Does anyone have a digital copy to share?
The complete document that was posted this week is attached here. Also FYI the MIAA link to download the document directly is: overtime-resolving-tied-games-miaa-football-final.pdf (https://www.miaa.net/sites/default/files/2026-05/overtime-resolving-tied-games-miaa-football-final.pdf)