Loophole on last play of game?

[Foot-n-bats]

A fellow official presented us with this play and now we're wondering if anyone has any creative rulings that might possibly be more fair. I checked the threads back 60 days and couldn't find anything on it so here goes:

Team A trails, 7-6. Team A has the ball 4th and 10 at the 50 yardline and one second remaining. A12 scrambles all the way down to team B's 5 yardline. Realizing that he would not make the end zone, A12 throws a forward pass and A75 catches the pass in team B's end zone.



Here's what we think....

A12 is guilty of an illegal forward pass in both high school and college. This seems to be the only foul on the play. There is no inelligible receiver (or inelligible downfield) foul since this is not a legal forward pass, therefore, no OPI (in a US high school game).

If declined by team B, the play would result in a touchdown for team A. Hence team B's only real option is to take the foul, which is a running play and the spot of the foul and the end of the run are the same spot AND the enforcement spot. Team A will be penalized 5 yards (the loss of down part of this foul does not apply since the yardage gained, minus the penalty will result in a first down). Team A will be allowed to run an untimed down from the team B 10 yardline. The extension of the period does not seem fair. However, there is nothing by rule that can be offered to team B, other than accepting the penalty and playing an untimed down. Team A can line up and kick a field goal or run one more play...

If this is the case, every team that is in this situation could or should run this play...not much to lose.

Comments?

[Simbio]

That's clever.....I've emailed it to about 15 of my fellow officials, I'll see what they say....

[Theisey]

I hate this play.. it comes up for discussion almost as often as the "where's the tee play".

Your result is what most of us also would rule. I would because several years back the NCAA rules editor provided a ruling stating the penalty had to be accepted else the TD counts. I guess I'll have to go to my archives and find it.

Not being a gambling man, I would bet that this was once in Referee magazine at one time too. Maybe someone knows.

[CBrockett]

That play has been on this site a couple of times now. Enforcement is how you stated....

If you have a coach that coaches this way, he deserves the chances of making a 27 yard field goal, or the 10 yard hail-mary pass.

Finally a coach who knows that PSK enforcement shouldn't always end up in your favor.

CBrockett

What have you to day about that?

[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.

[JRutledge]

I was going to post this play this week. We talked about this play at a social on Tuesday.

Mike,

I do not think you can invoke the "God Rule" here because the rules cover this play. The only problem is that this play is unfair, but the rules do not allow you not to enforce the play properly.

Peace

[Foot-n-bats]

Sorry....same here. Must be discuss "tricky play in the rear" week.

[chiefgil]

I have to agree with Mr Simmons.

99.9% of these kids don't have a clue about the rules of football. All they want is to make something happen to be the hero of the game.

[Mike Simonds]

Originally posted by JRutledge
I was going to post this play this week. We talked about this play at a social on Tuesday.

Mike,

I do not think you can invoke the "God Rule" here because the rules cover this play. The only problem is that this play is unfair, but the rules do not allow you not to enforce the play properly.

Peace

Did you read my entire post? St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summae Theologica, would begin his arguments with a statement that he would proceed to prove false.

My statement, if you read it all the way through, is an argument against invoking the unfair acts rule.

[Cordileran]

I've seen this happen on more than one occasion while officiating flag football. Enforcements are similar to NFHS. Five yards from spot, LOD, untimed play.

[SouthGARef]

There was a team that ran this play CONSTANTLY in flag football (who uses the same penalty enforcement as fed). They were gaining an advantage, and knew what they were doing.

They should really fix the rule...

[JRutledge]

Originally posted by Mike Simonds
[

Did you read my entire post? St. Thomas Aquinas, in his Summae Theologica, would begin his arguments with a statement that he would proceed to prove false.

My statement, if you read it all the way through, is an argument against invoking the unfair acts rule.

Mike,

I am just making a statement, not necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with you personally. I am just making a statement that you could not use that portion of the rulebook. Your hands are tied from my point of view regardless of what position we take.

Peace

[Mark D Kelsay]

By rule the unfair act rule does not apply.

[ljudge]

Theisey, you're correct in that the play mentioned was in Referee magazine. It was in August. BUT....referee magazine published an incorrect ruling. I sent Jeffrey Stern an e-mail and he said it was in fact a mistake and they were flooded with e-mails and calls about the ruling so they published something in last month's edition stating the error.

I posted something on this site at the time.....

http://www.officialforum.com/thread/14695

Perhaps a good ruling on this would be something like a 10-second runoff similar to what the NFL does.

[KWH]

Originally posted by ljudge

Perhaps a good ruling on this would be something like a 10-second runoff similar to what the NFL does.

While a 10-second runoff would resolve situations where A fouls to stop the clock, unfortunatly, it does not solve this issue!
Because, even if you were to invoke a 10-second runoff, you still have the same dilema for the captain of B:
a) Decline the penalty and A wins the game outright, or
b) Accept the penalty and give A one untimed down (So they can bring in their all state kicker and boot the winning field goal.)