Ball State Western Michigan

[Joe Stack]

Surprised this isn't a raging discussion. Here's the clip:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4cjEUpb5OA&ab_channel=PSCHighlights

Before discussing what they called, what have YOU got?

[Kalle]

What's there to discuss? The crew got it right. The only live-ball foul is the illegal forward pass, and as this carries a loss of down, the down is not repeated and the game ends. Fouls on the substitutes entering the field are dead-ball fouls, so they don't affect the result. The relevant rules are 3-2-3-a-1 and 9-2-1-b-PENALTY.

There is no reason to invoke 9-2-3-c, as the substitutes obviously did not affect the result.

[Joe Stack]

No incoming substitute shall enter the field of play or an end zone while the ball is in play.
3-5-2-a
(Page FR-58).

This is a LIVE ball foul. The definition of "substitute" defines what a "legal" substitute is (see 2-27-9-a-b) so perhaps the rule is awkwardly worded but I think the intent is clear. There's no participation requirement in the rule and as you know, a team can be penalized for more than 11 on the field, regardless of participation. Especially with the rule change this year of letting the play continue with Team B having more than 11 -- which is what happened here, except it happened WAY after the snap. So why would this rule not apply and the down replayed (offsetting live ball fouls) with the dead ball foul enforced?

I never understood why they got rid of the illegal participation foul. From an equity standpoint, had WM not committed a live ball foul and the game ended as it did here, that wouldn't have been a fair result. Otherwise, just send a team ahead in the score out on the field on the last play and tell them not to directly interfere. What's to stop that?

Perhaps we need to look at adding an exception to dead ball foul enforcement on end of game plays.

[Legacy Zebra]

Look at the penalty statement for 9-2-1-a-1 and AR 9-2-1-VIII. Because this is a foul by nonplayers, it is enforced as a dead ball foul even though it happens while the ball is live. It does not offset a live ball foul.

If you want to get into unfair acts, then you can look at equitable solutions. In this case, Team A will not get an untimed down because IFP has a loss of down. So whether he scores or not, the penalty will be accepted and the score canceled and the game will be over. So the equitable thing to do would be end the game anyway. The other thing to consider is that both teams had nonplayers on the field. Obviously Team B had more, but Team A did have team personnel (including one without a helmet on) on the field. If you’re going to say Team B affected the play, then so did Team A. But, again, in the end it doesn’t matter because of the IFP.

But if you want to talk about similar hypotheticals, change the IFP to OH. Now it matters whether he would have scored or not. If he scores, Team B has to accept the OH to cancel the score, but that would give Team A an untimed down. So now you can get into deciding what is equitable.

[Joe Stack]

Look at the penalty statement for 9-2-1-a-1 and AR 9-2-1-VIII. Because this is a foul by nonplayers, it is enforced as a dead ball foul even though it happens while the ball is live. It does not offset a live ball foul.

You're correct and I get all that (no need to bring up correct penalty enforcement; I know what constitutes offsetting fouls and the resulting penalties and live ball/dead ball fouls), but we're talking 2 different rules that I believe both apply. The substitution rule applies to nonplayers -- can either team have 12 players? 13? 2400? If not, what is/are the player(s) in addition to 11 called while they are on the field (besides illegal)? And what is the difference between that and what happened here? Forget the mass run on to the field by the entire team -- what do you have if a player in the first quarter, AFTER THE SNAP, runs on to the field (in excess of 11) thinking he is the 11th guy? Illegal sub or 9-2-1?

Keep in mind that 9-2-1 also says, "no substitutes may enter the field of play ..." (goes on to describe what they must do). If they're a LEGAL substitute, they wouldn't be on the sideline in the first place. At the very least, it shows the interrelation of 9-2-1 and the substitution rule (at least, in this case). I agree this is technical and some would say overthinking, but I do not agree that you simply ignore a substitution infraction here just because you have another rule -- especially one where a dead ball foul only applies.

I agree with everything else you wrote. My concern is to just take the event at face value and not look deeper into the rule and the intent. I think the rules committee needs to look at this play and decide, "do we really want a team running out on the field POTENTIALLY without penalty?" That's why I added my last comment.

[JasonTX]

I don't think the intent of those team members was to replace a player or fill a player vacancy.  I hang my hat on 9-2-1-b-4.

[Kalle]

As I understand it, rule 3-5 applies only when there is an attempt to substitute a player. If there is no such attempt, legal or illegal, the incoming person is not a substitute and simply a uniformed squad member. As Jason said, there was no attempt to substitute here, so rule 9-2-1 applies instead of 3-5-2.

In your play situation where a 12th person runs onto the field immediately after the snap attempting to substitute, even if he participates in play it is still a five yard live-ball foul, not a 15 yard USC DB. If 12th and 13th persons run in, still illegal substitutions. If you keep on adding persons then at some point (I'd say somewhere after two and well before 12) it becomes obvious that the intent is not to substitute - where that point is is up to the officials on the field.

[bossman72]

The team running on the field and interfering is a live ball unfair acts foul.

No way can we make this live ball treated as dead ball.  If that were the case, the entire offensive bench could come onto the field and lead block for the game winning TD.

Team runs on field and doesn't interfere with play = live ball treated as dead ball.
Team runs on field and interferes with play = live ball unfair acts.

The IFP and both teams running on the field should offset and we should replay the down.

[BrendanP]

When I saw this I figured the illegal forward pass trumped everything else, which makes sense to me at least.

[AlUpstateNY]

When I saw this I figured the illegal forward pass trumped everything else, which makes sense to me at least.

As insane as this looked on video, imagine what it looked like to the crew, in the eye of the hurricane, on the field in "real time".  Amazing job.