Announcers say the darndest things

[ncwingman]

Watching a college game on TV, a weird play occurred where the announcer's reaction made me question myself here, mostly because I know there are a few rabbit holes in NCAA rules compared to NFHS.

Kickoff after a score. R catches the ball at the 1 and begins to run. As he approaches the 10 yard line, tries to pass the ball across the field (ala Music City Miracle). The pass was "intercepted" in the air by K and returned for a touchdown. Seemed perfectly cut and dry, no question that everything was ruled correctly.

Then the announcers postulated that R was really hoping that was a forward pass, and therefore illegal, and started analyzing replays to see if it was (and were astonished that the replay official didn't stop play to investigate) -- as if the potential foul could save R from the result of the play.

I'm not crazy here -- that's complete irrelevant, right? Even if it had been an illegal forward pass, the fact that it was a *completed* pass means that K could simply decline the penalty and take the touchdown. The ball would be dead after an *incomplete* forward pass, but that was absolutely not in question on this play.

[ElvisLives]

Whether a pass is legal or illegal (forward or backward), if an opponent intercepts the pass, the ball is alive and in play and may be advanced by the interceptor. Announcers are...well, less than schooled on rules.

[ncwingman]

I figured that was right, but every once in a while I get caught by an odd NCAA rule quirk.

Here is the play, with commentary

[Kalle]

To one point of this: yes, the replay official did look at this (like he does on all plays) and confirmed it immediately. No need to stop the game for a review of an obviously correct ruling.

[ncwingman]

To one point of this: yes, the replay official did look at this (like he does on all plays) and confirmed it immediately. No need to stop the game for a review of an obviously correct ruling.

More to the point, if it was determined that the pass was forward, they could have flagged the foul in replay and then have the penalty immediately declined?

From a rule standpoint, it's important to review everything and make sure that everything is ruled correctly and the officials shouldn't assume that a team wants to accept or decline any specific foul, but from a slightly more practical standpoint, even if the pass was *obviously* forward would replay have attempted to reverse the call on the field (of a backward pass) knowing that it wouldn't affect anything?

[bama_stripes]

I saw that live as well, and had to rewind to make sure I heard him correctly.   

[Kalle]

More to the point, if it was determined that the pass was forward, they could have flagged the foul in replay and then have the penalty immediately declined?

From a rule standpoint, it's important to review everything and make sure that everything is ruled correctly and the officials shouldn't assume that a team wants to accept or decline any specific foul, but from a slightly more practical standpoint, even if the pass was *obviously* forward would replay have attempted to reverse the call on the field (of a backward pass) knowing that it wouldn't affect anything?

I'm by no means an IR expert, but as I understand it, the guidance to the replay officials is to not to butt in if there is no competitive effect in reversing a particular call. Even if the RO would have incontrovertible video evidence that the pass was forward and if it is reviewable (I think it is, but can't be bothered to check), it doesn't matter if this is flagged or not, as the penalty is obviously declined.