[Mike Simonds]

Perhaps the referee can invoke the unfair acts rule and then terminate the game.

The philosophy of penalty enforcement is to penalize A for the advantage it gained through a rule violation.

In this play, A should be penalized 5 yards from the spot of the illegal forward pass. Otherwise, to decline the penalty would result in a touchdown and an A victory.

Perhaps the referee could invoke the unfair acts rule and terminate the game if it was obvious that A committed this foul only to have the game extended by an untimed down. In the heat of the final play of the game it would seem to me that A's foul was not the result of some pre-meditated plan to purposely circumvent the rules and gain an unfair advantage but rather a quick mental reaction by the A player who probably was not even aware of his teammate's number at the time of the pass.

Therefore, given the facts as you present them, I would penalize A and then give them a final play with an untimed down.

We had a play this year in a high school varsity game where A threw a touchdown pass on the last play of the first half but A was holding prior to the pass.

The B coach went nuts because he thought that the half could end on an accepted A team penalty. Was this the rule many, many years ago? He did not understand that any live-ball accepted penalties, by A or B, would result in a replay of the down with untimed down.

We replayed with an untimed down and A threw an incomplete pass but A was holding again prior to the pass. So B declined the penalty and took the results of the play and the half was over.