View Single Post
  #159 (permalink)  
Old Tue Feb 10, 2009, 06:07pm
bisonlj bisonlj is offline
Official Forum Member
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 923
Originally Posted by pedr View Post
That was my thought while watching: if they ruled him down short, Pittsburgh could accept the penalty, giving Arizona the ball back, and one last shot at the end-zone (unlikely), or go into the locker room having nearly but not quite pulled off one of the greatest interceptions in Superbowl history!

The idea that a foul before a change of possession is still assessed against the possession-surrendering team seemed very odd - but that's what Pereria said the rule was in the NFL (and, I suppose, the justification is that 'Personal Foul' is not a foul because it is an unfair game-altering act like holding, but an offence of unauthorised violence towards another player which ought to be penalised when ever it takes place.)

The technicalities on whose penalties extend the half are well beyond my amateur status, of course!
Mike Pereira explained in the Official Review that the NFL rule would have allowed Pittsburgh to have an untimed down because the penalty was a personal foul. It didn't matter if it occurred pre- or post-COP. I had never heard that before but it makes sense. As others have stated, this would be enforced differently at the NFHS level and the defensive team would not have been happy.
Reply With Quote