BYU-Utah end of game

[justaLJ]

Interesting ending to this game on Saturday, and surprised to see this hasn't been discussed here yet, so here it goes.

Situation: BYU trails 24-21, they are driving inside the Utah 35 with :07 remaining.  BYU incomplete pass on 2nd down, game clock shows :00.  Utah team bench and fans rush the field.  Replay gets involved, and correctly puts :01 on the game clock.  Field is cleared.  BYU 3rd down FG attempt is blocked, BYU picks up ball behind LOS and runs for a few yards, Utah bench and fans rush field as runner is tackled and time expires.

Flag is thrown, UNS is the call.  15-yd penalty enforced from previous spot, BYU gets an untimed down, but misses FG.

Thoughts?

Link with video: http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/entertainment/54912078-77/byu-game-utah-fans.html.csp

[Andrew McCarthy]

I was watching and didn't understand why they extended the game after the blocked field goal play.  The fans were on the far side of the field and didn't interfere with the play.  When the runner is tackled the closest people are maybe to the hashes and don't even show up on the tighter view.

[justaLJ]

Agree.  I did not see a player remove his helmet or any other such live ball UNS act.

9-2-1-b covers coaches, subs, etc and clearly indicates those are to be enforced as dead ball fouls from succeeding spot.  Same with game administration in 9-2-5, which also covers non-players, dead ball succeeding spot is the enforcement there as well.  It was essentially an unenforceable foul situation.
 
Thank goodness BYU missed the FG during the untimed down.

The football gods were with the crew on this one, and a good learning opportunity for all.

[zebra99]

I think it was handled appropriately.  Think of being on the field and you see fans and players racing towards you.  Doubt you would think that they in no way are interfering.  Also, suppose you let it go - try explaining that it is legal.  I believe 9-2-3 Unfair Acts covers it.

It's easy to carefully review the video and conclude no actual interference but again if you're at field level trying to officiate the play - different story.

[justaLJ]

@zebra99, your perspective as always is appreciated and valued.

To push a bit on the unfair acts angle, the flood of non-players came from the opposite side from where the play ended.  So to bring it back to some basic philosophy, did it have an impact on the play, and was the awarding of an untimed down for another FG attempt equitable?

[Kalle]

I think that it is easy to justify both choices in this particular situation: DB UNS or a LB UA. Which one you want to choose depends on what your supervisor wants.

DB UNS: the non-players had zero effect on the play, so why penalise the players for a good play?

LB UA: this wasn't just one or two non-players, it was a flood. Stupidity on this scale should be penalised.

[El Macman]

@zebra99, your perspective as always is appreciated and valued.

To push a bit on the unfair acts angle, the flood of non-players came from the opposite side from where the play ended.  So to bring it back to some basic philosophy, did it have an impact on the play, and was the awarding of an untimed down for another FG attempt equitable?

Equitable? That was the only reasonable penalty that would mean anything. Awarding a score or declaring a forfeit would clearly have been excessive. So, a distance penalty and an untimed down were totally appropriate.

Let's point the finger at the real problem. If the University of Utah (or any institution) didn't want the possibility of losing the game due to such a penalty, they should have had security measures in place to prevent such action. Team personnel need to be better coached to stay off the field until the R raises the ball over his head.

This was a major rivalry game, and those responsible for game administration had to know that, and know that the possibility of such an event was greater than normal. They need to take responsibility and accept  credit or blame for any success or failure, respectively, to control those not subject to the rules.
 
The officials got it right.

[SanDiegoStryker]

No way they got this right. Nonplayers on the field is a dead ball foul. We can't extend for that.

The players had blocked the field goal. We should not take that accomplishment away from them. Giving BYU three chances to win this game does not seems fair or equitable at all.

I could mmmmaybe see unfair act and let them kick again, but moving them 15 yards closer? That seems ridiculously unfair.

[justaLJ]

No finger pointing is intended here, only discussion in an effort to learn and improve.   

From a purely rules based perspective, I had not considered unfair acts in 9-2-3 before zebra99 mentioned it.  It's a stretch IMO, but one could make a case that the H on the backside of the blocked FG play was interfered with so 9-2-3 could apply.  Given the 15 yard penalty, the heart burn was that there was a non-player UNS enforced as a live ball foul.

We have rule support for dead ball UNS, therefore game over, and what ended up happening.  A rare "no lose" situation for the crew and supervisor.  Curious where Mr. Redding would come down on this.

[zebra99]

So SDStryker - you say "Giving BYU three chances to win this game  ....."  Maybe I'm missing something but what are the other two?  Certainly wearing your official's hat - are you an official? - you would agree that the IR stop putting one second on the clock was correct?

What was the 3rd "chance" you claim the officials gave BYU?

No way they got this right. Nonplayers on the field is a dead ball foul. We can't extend for that.

The players had blocked the field goal. We should not take that accomplishment away from them. Giving BYU three chances to win this game does not seems fair or equitable at all.

I could mmmmaybe see unfair act and let them kick again, but moving them 15 yards closer? That seems ridiculously unfair.

[BNE-Ref]

I'm with the live ball Unfair Acts people on this one.  The crowd clearly enters the field of play while the ball is still live, and could arguably have affected the options that BYU might have had. 

Coincidentally, I've been in a similar situation, working LJ in the late '80s.  Queensland at home against Western Australia in a interstate game.  WA trailing by two, with 0:02 on the clock in the 4th quarter, goes for a long range field goal.  Kick is well short, and does not even make the end zone.  While the kick is in the air, and it is clear that it is well short, Queensland bench and supporters enter the field to celebrate.  Ball is still live, but I flag for UC.  Time had expired, so we get an untimed down after the 15 yard penalty.  WA kicks again and wins on a successful FG.

[TXMike]

We went through this after the Alamo Bowl debacle several years back and I thought most of us agreed there has to be an extension in a situation like this. 

[Diablo]

We went through this after the Alamo Bowl debacle several years back and I thought most of us agreed there has to be an extension in a situation like this.

The end of the BYU - Utah game was mild compared to the Michigan - Nebraska Alamo game.  See
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dLEXBPwF9_g
In the Alamo game the final ball carrier and blockers & would be tacklers had to run through several extraneous personnel.

[SanDiegoStryker]

What was the 3rd "chance" you claim the officials gave BYU?

Well, from what I saw the game seemingly ended on an incomplete pass. By putting 1 second back on the clock and allowing another play BYU is getting a second chance. By assessing the penalty and extending the period for an untimed down BYU is getting a third chance. <shrug> I don't know, that's how it felt. I don't think I'm the only one who felt that way since the crowd rushed the field three times.

I do think that putting 1 second on the clock was correct, but not allowing a second kick.

The crowd clearly enters the field of play while the ball is still live, and could arguably have affected the options that BYU might have had. 

The other problem is, from replays I have seen, BYU coaches and players also entered the field during the live ball. They actually entered the field before the Utah fans and were closer to the live ball action. Does that warrant at least an offsetting?

[TXMike]

The play made the CFO Game Review video this week.  RR says it was correctly handled as an "Unfair Acts" foul.  He said that rule was purposely written in a very general manner to give the R great discretion in handling situations like this.  He commended the crew for the way it was handled.

[SanDiegoStryker]

Well alright then. I'm definitely not going to argue with RR. Excellent call by the crew! 

Seriously, thanks for posting that. Great to get a definitive answer.

[Diablo]

The play made the CFO Game Review video this week.  RR says it was correctly handled as an "Unfair Acts" foul.  He said that rule was purposely written in a very general manner to give the R great discretion in handling situations like this.  He commended the crew for the way it was handled.

Does this mean there'll be an asterisk next to Nebraska's win in the 2005 Alamo Bowl game?   

[TXMike]

There always has been in my book