Is this what they want?

[ElvisLives]

For 2021:

4/10, B-40, 0:12 (4), A=14, B=14.
A11 advances to the B-31, where he is contacted by opponents, but is moving forward when he attempts a backward pass to A89 from the B-30. A89 first touches the ball at the B-29, completes the catch, and advances to the B-10, where he is forced out of bounds after time has expired in the period.

Ruling: B may decline the penalty for the illegal forward pass (made from beyond the NZ) and allow the game to move to an Extra Period, or B may accept the 5-yard penalty at the spot of the pass (B-30), with a loss of down, which will award the ball to Team B at the B-35. Team B will then be given the option to extend the period for an untimed down, OR allow regulation play to end, and move to an Extra Period. If Team B opts to extend the period, the next down will be B, 1/10, B-35, no game clock (25). (Here is where the R uses the "finger twirl" signal to notify the GCO and the pressbox that the next down will be an untimed down. The GCO doesn't care, because he has already figured this out, has grabbed the last chicken wing off the buffet, and is on the elevator down to the ground level, headin' for his car.)

They could go for the hail Mary, or have a rugby-style scrimmage with multiple running plays with backward passes. Or, they could disappoint everybody and take a knee. 

The 2021 rule change would appear to make this a viable option. Previously, the period would have ended - no option, due to the loss-of-down in the penalty statement. But the 2021 rule change gives the offended team the option to extend the period for a foul that has loss-of-down in the penalty statement.

Have I got this right?

[Legacy Zebra]

Yes, this is what the change is supposed to do. There was a play a few years ago in the Central Michigan vs Oklahoma State game that highlighted a bit of a loophole and this is the response to that loophole.

The play: 4/10 @ 50, 0:08 left in the 4th, A leads by 4

A11 takes the snap and drops straight back. He throws a forward pass high and deep away from any eligible receiver in an attempt to let the game clock expire. The Referee flags A11 for ING. They penalize the loss of down at the previous spot, but incorrectly gave Team B an untimed down. Team B completes a Hail Mary to win the game.

While the crew got the enforcement wrong, many believed that what they did was more fair than the correct ruling would have been. If they had gotten it right, Team A would have won the game by fouling. So here we are with a rule change to let the offended team have the option to extend the period if they would benefit from that.

[ElvisLives]

Yes, this is what the change is supposed to do. There was a play a few years ago in the Central Michigan vs Oklahoma State game that highlighted a bit of a loophole and this is the response to that loophole.

The play: 4/10 @ 50, 0:08 left in the 4th, A leads by 4

A11 takes the snap and drops straight back. He throws a forward pass high and deep away from any eligible receiver in an attempt to let the game clock expire. The Referee flags A11 for ING. They penalize the loss of down at the previous spot, but incorrectly gave Team B an untimed down. Team B completes a Hail Mary to win the game.

While the crew got the enforcement wrong, many believed that what they did was more fair than the correct ruling would have been. If they had gotten it right, Team A would have won the game by fouling. So here we are with a rule change to let the offended team have the option to extend the period if they would benefit from that.

Yeah, that was the down that I presumed caused this change. BTW, they did penalize at the spot of the pass, not the previous spot. But, yeah. Extending the period was incorrect, for that day and time. The sad thing is that a smart team would have found a way to run around for 8 seconds, making all of this moot. I don't know what happened to those guys, but I hope it didn't affect their long-term careers.

[JDM]

For 2021:

4/10, B-40, 0:12 (4), A=14, B=14.
A11 advances to the B-31, where he is contacted by opponents, but is moving forward when he attempts a backward pass to A89 from the B-30. A89 first touches the ball at the B-29, completes the catch, and advances to the B-10, where he is forced out of bounds after time has expired in the period.

Ruling: B may decline the penalty for the illegal forward pass (made from beyond the NZ) and allow the game to move to an Extra Period, or B may accept the 5-yard penalty at the spot of the pass (B-30), with a loss of down, which will award the ball to Team B at the B-35. Team B will then be given the option to extend the period for an untimed down, OR allow regulation play to end, and move to an Extra Period. If Team B opts to extend the period, the next down will be B, 1/10, B-35, no game clock (25). (Here is where the R uses the "finger twirl" signal to notify the GCO and the pressbox that the next down will be an untimed down. The GCO doesn't care, because he has already figured this out, has grabbed the last chicken wing off the buffet, and is on the elevator down to the ground level, headin' for his car.)

They could go for the hail Mary, or have a rugby-style scrimmage with multiple running plays with backward passes. Or, they could disappoint everybody and take a knee. 

The 2021 rule change would appear to make this a viable option. Previously, the period would have ended - no option, due to the loss-of-down in the penalty statement. But the 2021 rule change gives the offended team the option to extend the period for a foul that has loss-of-down in the penalty statement.

Have I got this right?

I only disagree with the statement that there will be a wing to be had...

[sj]

Rom Gilbert has advocated for this change for quite awhile. And Elvis I know a couple of those guys and they're still working and doing fine.

[ElvisLives]

I only disagree with the statement that there will be a wing to be had...

Now that’s funny, I don’t care who ya are!😂🍗

[ElvisLives]

Rom Gilbert has advocated for this change for quite awhile. And Elvis I know a couple of those guys and they're doing still working and doing fine.

That’s good to hear. Hope they have long careers.

[Ralph Damren]

The NFHS "no untimed down if LOD" rule was put in 2005 and am unsure if this was before or after the NCAA rule. It was prompted by a play that had occurred in a Louisiana state championship :

(1) A scores to go up by 2 with 0:15 to go in 4th;
(2) B turns KO return into a rugby scrum;
(3) return ends when B1 completes an IFP from A's 10 to B2 in EZ, clock reads: 0:00;
(4) ball placed @ A's 15, enter Hans, B's kicker;
(5) Hans's kick sails thru pipes, Hans  sails off with prom queen  ;
(6) GCO chokes on chicken bone.

When this came up for a vote, I suggested that an exception be made if this had occurred on a 4th down play, as B would now have the ball. Exceptions were/are not popular with NFHS and I did not follow my suggestion with an argument as I had bigger lobsters to boil (some outside of Maine  may say "bigger fish to fry") in supporting  7-5-11 : Contact by a defender OBVIOUSLY AWAY from the direction of the pass is NOT considered pass interference. 7-5-11 passed, my timid suggestion on 3-3-4 did not.   

[JDM]

That’s good to hear. Hope they have long careers.

Echo that. Much respect for Rom Gilbert. I miss the old days of "The Pigskin Page" which was a treasure trove of good information and training.

[Ralph Damren]

The NFHS "no untimed down if LOD" rule was put in 2005 and am unsure if this was before or after the NCAA rule. It was prompted by a play that had occurred in a Louisiana state championship :

(1) A scores to go up by 2 with 0:15 to go in 4th;
(2) B turns KO return into a rugby scrum;
(3) return ends when B1 completes an IFP from A's 10 to B2 in EZ, clock reads: 0:00;
(4) ball placed @ A's 15, enter Hans, B's kicker;
(5) Hans's kick sails thru pipes, Hans  sails off with prom queen  ;
(6) GCO chokes on chicken bone.

When this came up for a vote, I suggested that an exception be made if this had occurred on a 4th down play, as B would now have the ball. Exceptions were/are not popular with NFHS and I did not follow my suggestion with an argument as I had bigger lobsters to boil (some outside of Maine  may say "bigger fish to fry") in supporting  7-5-11 : Contact by a defender OBVIOUSLY AWAY from the direction of the pass is NOT considered pass interference. 7-5-11 passed, my timid suggestion on 3-3-4 did not. 

Brought forth as an answer to a trivia question on NFHS forum. Sorry to barge in, NCAA guys  !

[ElvisLives]

Brought forth as an answer to a trivia question on NFHS forum. Sorry to barge in, NCAA guys  !

Barge all ya want! We fear no one, and welcome ALL! C'mon in. The water is fine. Quoting Chris Janson in "Go to Hawaii on Me," "Put your feet in the sand, buy you a Coke, raise it on up, crack a good joke!"