IG to End Game

[fudilligas]

Team A leading 10-7...4th and 5 from the 50, 7 seconds left on the clock....QB from Team A takes the snap and proceeds to run around to kill the clock...feeling pressure from the defense he panics and throws a pass into an area where there is no receiver....time on the clock runs out while this occurs....the QB is called for IG....since Team A is not going to get an untimed down due to the LOD...is Team B entitled to run one play after accepting the penalty

[ncwingman]

No. Team B did not have possession of the ball at the time of the foul, therefore they are not entitled to an untimed down. See Fundamental I.6 and I.7.

[CalhounLJ]

Team A leading 10-7...4th and 5 from the 50, 7 seconds left on the clock....QB from Team A takes the snap and proceeds to run around to kill the clock...feeling pressure from the defense he panics and throws a pass into an area where there is no receiver....time on the clock runs out while this occurs....the QB is called for IG....since Team A is not going to get an untimed down due to the LOD...is Team B entitled to run one play after accepting the penalty

Regardless whether B accepts the penalty or not, it would be their ball if there's time left on the clock. Sadly, the clock has expired, therefore the game is over. Team B can't run a play if they decline the penalty, because there's no time on the clock. They can't run a play if they accept the penalty, because we can't extend the period on a foul that carries a loss of down provision...

[fudilligas]

So- team A can end the game by doing something illegal and team B can’t do anything about it?

[ncwingman]

So- team A can end the game by doing something illegal and team B can’t do anything about it?

Correct.

A could have had their entire offensive line just tackle the entire defensive rush to run out the clock and then the QB kneels once the clock hit zero. If the penalties were accepted, which would come with an untimed down, it would still be A's ball and they'd just have to kneel to end the game. Under no circumstances (without a change of possession during the live ball action) would B be awarded the ball and a free play.

[dammitbobby]

Correct.

A could have had their entire offensive line just tackle the entire defensive rush to run out the clock and then the QB kneels once the clock hit zero. If the penalties were accepted, which would come with an untimed down, it would still be A's ball and they'd just have to kneel to end the game. Under no circumstances (without a change of possession during the live ball action) would B be awarded the ball and a free play.

Just for discussion and grins and giggles, would you entertain an unfair acts ruling if Team A actually, on purpose, did this, in a super close game?

A 4/10 at the A-5, A is up by 3, he runs around and commits IG at the A-3. In both instances, Team A intentionally tackles the entire the defensive line to prevent a sack in the EZ.

[ncwingman]

Just for discussion and grins and giggles, would you entertain an unfair acts ruling if Team A actually, on purpose, did this, in a super close game?

A 4/10 at the A-5, A is up by 3, he runs around and commits IG at the A-3. In both instances, Team A intentionally tackles the entire the defensive line to prevent a sack in the EZ.

Short answer is no.

It would have to take something particularly egregious, outside of the spirit and context of the game, for me to God Rule the ball to B and give them a free play.

A doesn't need to IG the ball in this scenario, they can simply take a knee. If A didn't IG the ball, the game would still be over and A would still have won. A did not win *because* they fouled. You'd have to come up with a scenario where A doesn't win without the foul AND B can't just enforce the foul by rule.

[bossman72]

NCAA fixed this by making the extension of the period optional for the offended team.

[ncwingman]

NCAA fixed this by making the extension of the period optional for the offended team.

I know about That Play that probably instigated that change, but there's no AR that actually covers this scenario where B is awarded the ball and an untimed down. Is there a rules video or other memo that was sent out that explicitly says "Yes, Central Michigan should get the ball again the next time this happens"?

In my reading of the NCAA rulebook, the opponent of the team in possession has the option to decline the untimed down, but there's nothing that states that possession changes (or could change) for the untimed down. The fouling team would still be the one to get the extra play since they had possession of the ball at the time of the enforced foul.

I'm willing to be wrong, but I'd be very surprised if I was.

[Legacy Zebra]

The foul occurred on 4th down and includes loss of down. What down would it be if Team A got to keep the ball? The only option is for Team B to get the ball for the untimed down.

[ncwingman]

The foul occurred on 4th down and includes loss of down. What down would it be if Team A got to keep the ball? The only option is for Team B to get the ball for the untimed down.

A period is extended by an untimed down when a foul during the last timed down requires replaying the down. If the right to replay the down is lost (or declined per NCAA rules) then there is no untimed down to play. The untimed down is a replayed down, not an extra play.* The number of the down remains the same, unless the ball is beyond the line to gain after the yardage enforcement then it's 1st, because it doesn't make sense to be 4th down and negative 5 yards to go.

5-2-2 in Fed rules and 5-2-3 in NCAA both say that when a penalty is accepted for a foul prior to a change of team possession, the ball belongs to Team A.

*The only exception to this is extending a period for a try when a touchdown is scored, but that's not relevant to this discussion.

[Kalle]

Let's take the NCAA discussion to the NCAA board.

[KWH]

Let's take the NCAA discussion to the NCAA board.

Thank you Kalle, This is the best post I have read in months.

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO....

3-3-4b(3) should be amended to: "Fouls that specify loss of down UNLESS A CHANGE OF POSSESSION OCCURS ON 4TH DOWN.

 

[NVFOA_Ump]

IMHO....

3-3-4b(3) should be amended to: "Fouls that specify loss of down UNLESS A CHANGE OF POSSESSION OCCURS ON 4TH DOWN.

 

So are you saying that on this specific type of play where team A intentionally takes a LOD foul on 4th down to effectively run out the game clock and end the game, that there should be an untimed down for team B after penalty enforcement?

[ncwingman]

So are you saying that on this specific type of play where team A intentionally takes a LOD foul on 4th down to effectively run out the game clock and end the game, that there should be an untimed down for team B after penalty enforcement?

In this particular situation, there was no change of possession during the down.

However, does the foul have to take place after the change of possession? If A throws an illegal forward pass that's intercepted by B, wouldn't B have to decline the foul to keep the ball, which means there is no accepted foul and no extenstion... unless B intercepts a legal pass, then B56 throws a pass to B99 in the end zone... therefore there *would* be an untimed down *for B* and they get to benefit from their own foul?

[BetweenTheLines]

That's incorrect. Although the loss of down aspect is of no significance it is still considered a penalty with loss of down. There will be no extension of the period.

[ncwingman]

That's incorrect. Although the loss of down aspect is of no significance it is still considered a penalty with loss of down. There will be no extension of the period.

What is the "that" to which you refer? I can't tell if you're referring to Ralph's hypothetical rule change or the original post involving the actual rule.

[BetweenTheLines]

Neither, I'm talking about your hypothetical play. And in case you don't understand the term "thread" this reply is in response to you ncwingman.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Neither, I'm talking about your hypothetical play. And in case you don't understand the term "thread" this reply is in response to you ncwingman.

FYI for clarity and understanding, the accepted mechanism to respond to a specific comment in a thread with diverse questions is to quote the actual post that you are replying to.  This message board has been set up specifically to allow for that and to avoid having to guess each response and which specific question the response is addressing. 

[CalhounLJ]

What is the "that" to which you refer? I can't tell if you're referring to Ralph's hypothetical rule change or the original post involving the actual rule.

He's mixed up. The LOD foul after the change of possession you offered got him. He was thinking of the rule as is, whereas you were using it to dispute Ralph's suggestion. I don't think you are the one who doesn't understand how the thread works...

[Derek Teigen]

IMHO....

3-3-4b(3) should be amended to: "Fouls that specify loss of down UNLESS A CHANGE OF POSSESSION OCCURS ON 4TH DOWN.

 

I agree with you Ralph.  Also I've been thinking about the scenario described in this thread and i would add that if the passer is out of the pocket and the ball makes the LOS is would not be IG . The newer IG requirements make it even less likely a play like this would occur. 

[Ralph Damren]

Several years ago this rule was added to prevent an occurance that happened during a championship game in Louisiana.....
(1) K led by 2 points and was kicking off with 0:05 left in game;
(2) R, after several backward passes, threw a forward one at K's 20;
(3) R2 caught the IFP and entered K's EZ;
(4) Clock read 0:00, K needed to take penalty to cancel TD;
(5) R got an untimed down from K's 25;
(6) Hans-an exchange student from Europe- kicked the game-winning FG.
 
We then discussed..I pointed out the possibility of it occurring on a 4th down play. There wasn't much concern and I didn't argue as I had bigger Lobsters to boil (some non-Mainers may say 'fish to fry') in passing 7-11c : It isn't DPI if contact by Bis obviously away from the direction of the pass.

Since it's passage IG on 4th down by leading team has occurred in a high profile NCAA and state championship NFHS game with the officials "rightly got it wrong" by giving A an untimed down. I'll propose my suggestion to right the wrong caused by those officials

[Derek Teigen]

Ralph, Do you mean by giving B (now in possession of the  ball due to turnover on downs, an untimed play?