Legal Cheating?

[bama_stripes]

Was listening to a college coach on sports talk radio yesterday discussing the end of the OSU/Oregon game, and he brought up this play that he claims his team uses:

Team A leads by 1 point and has the ball deep in their own territory on 4th down.  There are 10 seconds remaining in the game.

Rather than risk a blocked punt, everyone on his team bear hugs an opposing player at the snap, while the QB drops back to the 1-yard line.  When the clock hits 0:00, the QB takes a knee.

Of course, there are multiple flags for holding.  Team A is penalized and must snap for an untimed down, but they simply take a knee — game over.

Is there anything in NFHS Rules that would fairly penalize such shenanigans?

[NVFOA_Ump]

I believe that this type of situation has been discussed previously and there's nothing that can be done here without a rule change.  A LOD enforcement with an untimed down to follow would end this one pretty quickly.  On the Oregon play, the NCAA issued a "clarification" almost immediately and "fixed" the specific problem.

[Ralph Damren]

I believe a simular event occurred near the end of the Super Bowl between SF & Balt. The NFL took simular corrective action.

IMHO, in our code, one could consider 9-9-1...the unfair act rule. Case 9.9.1A states that "...This situation illustrates when it is appropriate for the referee to invoke the unfair-act rule and handle the situation in any way the referee feels is equitable."

Some could say that we have a rule against holding , it's 10 yards. 9-9-1 is the rule that we would apply if big ole' Bubba came off the bench to make a touchdown saving tackle. He is guilty of illigal participation a 15 yard penalty BUT for his unfair act the penalty doesn't fit the crime. I think we all would agree to award a TD.

Rule 1-1-6 : If there isn't a rule, make one up.

Rule 9-9-1 : There is a rule .but it doesn't cover an unfair act such as this topic. 

Using 9-9-1...WHAT WOULD YOU GUYs DO ?? 

[MAFBRef]

I would argue you could also use 9-9-5 as a travesty. Either way, with my discretion, we are going to put the clock back to 0:10, penalize half the distance, and start the clock on the snap.

[Ralph Damren]

While NVFOA UMP has a bold suggestion, ruling the foul a los of down would not currently allow an untimed down (I've got a proposal in to exclude LOD fouls by A or K from the untimed down restriction). MAFBRef's suggestion would cause a 'do-over" with a dead clock. Both would put an end the'dance party' with the O-linemen. Any others.......

[Kalle]

Just to note to the OP that NCAA actually has addressed the play the coach claims to run. All holding penalties will be converted to unsportsmanlike conduct penalties, one 15 yard distance penalty is enforced, and the game clock is reset and will start on the snap. The implication is that if team A persists in running this play more than once, sooner than later the referee will award team B a TD. NCAA Approved Ruling 9-2-3-III.

[ncwingman]

sooner than later the referee will award team B a TD. NCAA Approved Ruling 9-2-3-III.

In any code, just to not get this off topic necessarily, have there been any notable occurrences of a TD being awarded under this (or a similar) rule -- but that didn't involve a player on the way to score (i.e., the Too Much Bama play)?

Although, if we're being technical, did that rule exist in the 1954 Cotton Bowl, or was it *because* of the 1954 Cotton Bowl?

[bama_stripes]

In any code, just to not get this off topic necessarily, have there been any notable occurrences of a TD being awarded under this (or a similar) rule -- but that didn't involve a player on the way to score (i.e., the Too Much Bama play)?

Although, if we're being technical, did that rule exist in the 1954 Cotton Bowl, or was it *because* of the 1954 Cotton Bowl?

Don’t know for sure, but I’d bet there was an “Acts not covered by the rules” provision in place.  And, FWIW, it was obvious to everybody that Moegle was going to score a TD.

[The Roamin' Umpire]

Although, if we're being technical, did that rule exist in the 1954 Cotton Bowl, or was it *because* of the 1954 Cotton Bowl?

That sounds like a question for Timothy Brown of the Football Archaeology blog / mailing list.