Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TXMike
If it is judged those Team B players interfered with the play, the officials can award any penalty deemed equitable. You would have to see the specific play and then judge what impact the interference had and then award whatever penalty you deemed equitable. I would be very reluctant to let A have the down again and would probably opt to enforce on B's series that would start next.
|
The specific thought was that it was the second series of an OT period with Team B already scoring in the first series. The sense I got was that some thought it would unfair if there were two changes of possession (i.e. ball back to team A) and Team A was denied an oportunity to score because of (let's say) a tripping foul by Team B. I've heard some arguments that they should at least be allowed one untimed down, although it sounded more like improvising since the rules seem to state that fouls (except dead-ball types) aren't enforceable (except to nullify a score) by a penalty once there's a change of possession. As far as I can tell, the rule pretty much is designed to make sure that a turnover in an OT series absolutely stops that series after the play is over.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by TXMike
Same as B but would be very willing to award the score if it seemed A had a pretty good chance to score
|
I thought so too.
Actually - the game last Saturday was the Washington at California game where Cal won 31-24 in one OT. I've actually heard that our in our most infamous game (1982 Stanford at Cal) the officials publicly stated that they would have likely awarded a touchdown due to illegal interference (on the Stanford Band) had a Cal player been tackled before reaching the endzone.