I was working on my test today and decided to read the overtime rules again. My question is: If the play is dead as soon as B gets possession, how in the world can they score a touchdown on the play. Also, it mentions A scoring a safety, how can that happen?

It's very unlikely that Team-B could ever score under the standard, unmodifed version of the NF suggested overtime procedure.
Here's how.
safety for B: Team-B tackles Team-A runner in THEIR EZ.
touchdown for B: Team-B recovers Team-A fumble in THEIR EZ.

How exactly did Team-A get pushed back that far is for your own imagination to determine.

Team-A can score a safety when new force was added to a Team-A fumble by a team-B player in which the ball is forced into and out of Team-Bs EZ or recovered by Team-B in their EZ.

Last year, Utah adopted a new overtime procedure. We place it on the 25 like in college. However we added one more modification, B can now score. If B scores,the game is over.

REPLY: Overtime procedures are very much state-specific. Each state association can determine its own procedures for resolving ties--including maybe no such procedure at all. The procedure in the Fed rule book is a <u>recommended</u> way to resolve ties--not a mandated one. I've noticed a lot more states going to the NCAA procedure like bjudge described.

Problems arise when states use the NF recommended overtime procedure and don't provide any addtional interpretation or clarification to what is printed in the rulebook.

The main thing that confuses me about NF's OT is time outs. Not only do second-half time outs carry over to the OT, but teams get one additional TO per OT period. So one team could potentially have seven of them stacked up by the fourth overtime. (At least, that's how we've been interpreting it... I'm not sure if that extra time out is supposed to carry over each time. Rule book's not totally clear on that.)

And the can of worms have been opened!

I had a multiple overtime (four or five OT ) game once. We had 21 charged timeouts before the day was over. Each OT period each team gets one more timeout.

Actually the players need them to rest and the coaches need them for their stategic play calling so they will use almost every time out they have.

This is why I said the can of worms has been opened. This was gone over and over a while back on either this, or the McGriff’s board.
In the back of the NF rulebook rule 3-5-1 says "Each team is permitted one additional timeout during each overtime period <b>plus any unused 2nd half regulation timeout's." </b>

One additional timeout for each overtime – plus unused 2nd half timeout’s. So let’s look at this scenario. If team A has 2 - 2nd half timeout’s left and we go overtime, no one will argue that team A will have 3 in the 1st overtime. But, when the 2nd overtime starts, they get “one additional”, plus the unused 2 from the 2nd half, meaning 3 again. It does not matter if they used the 1st additional timeout or not, they have 3, not 4. Rule 3-5-1 does not say they get an additional timeout for each overtime and plus ALL remaining timeout’s, it says “plus any unused 2nd half timeout’s." Therefore a team will never have more than 4 timeout’s in an overtime. Now if they only use 1 timeout in the overtime period, they will have the same number for the next overtime, and therefore may never run out, but they cannot build up 5, 6, 7… timeouts.

I missed that discussion but, in a five over time game you can have 22 timeouts. Assume each team uses 3 each in the half plus each team uses one in each overtime period. That gives you 3 + 3 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 11 per team x 2 = 22 timeouts. Damn tiring game by the way. It rained the whole first half and the second half and overtimes were played in gooey mud.

Don't lose sight of the fact that the NF procedure is a recommedation for a state to adopt as is or not.
Timeouts, is one of those "things" that may be different between states that play some form of NF overtime. Some let'm all carry over, some don't.
Both ways are correct.

I believe this is the opposite of what MJT is saying (I missed the McGriff discussion also). This is how I interpret what he is saying:

OT 1: 2 second half TO's + 1 OT TO = 3 TO's

Now suppose they don't use any TO's in OT 1.

OT 2: 2 second half TO's + 1 second OT TO = 3 TO's
(i.e., the first OT TO does not "carry over)

Again, the don't use any TO's in OT 2.

OT 3: 2 second half TO's + 1 third OT TO = 3 TO's
(second OT TO does not carry over)

What if they use 1 TO in the first OT? Which TO is "taken" away. In other words, do they charged with a second half TO when they call one (meaning only 1 second half TO would carry over to the 2nd OT) or are they charged with the first OT TO, meaning they can still take both 2nd half TO's to the next overtime. Sorry if they is plain as day in the rulebook...I don't have one in front of the, and also, sorry to confuse you will all the O's and T's.

PSU213,

My explanation did not conflict with what MJT said. I just showed what can happen if all of the timeouts are used while MJT was only talking about unused timeouts. For example, in the regular game a team can use 6 timeouts but will never have more than 3 available.

I agree with both your and MJT's view that the OT timeouts don't accummulate and the most a team can have unused in an OT period would be 4.

Gotcha....sorry, wasn't trying to be argumentative. Just trying to clear things up (if anything, just for me).

Last year on the NFHS board and the PIAA in Pennsylvania both said that time outs do accumulate. So you could have 5,6,7.. in OT. I know that every state is different, but this was a long discussion and that was the outcome.

If you read the wording carefully and do as it says then they carry over. One additional for each over time. So if I had 3 after the first overtime then I receive one more in the next time. Nowhere does it say that I lose any.

I was on one side of the arguement for overtime timeouts and now I am on the other. I won't say which but in Kansas we are not to add them. I came to my final conclusion about what I think the rule says after re-re-re-re-re-re-reading it. Now the NF could clear this all up with just a slight bit of rewording and then the arguement over timeouts would be solved. Obviously it is not a well written rule if half the country thinks it says one thing and the other half thinks the opposite.

Where does it says they carry over?? 3-5-1 says "Each team is permitted one additional timeout during each overtime period plus any unused 2nd half regulation timeout's." It doesn't say any unused extra period TO's and unused 2nd half regualation TO's.

How does "one additional, plus unused 2nd half regulation TO's" in anyway say all the TO's carry over????

Let's turn the wording around, going backwards. It would then say, "unused 2nd half regulation TO's, and one additional TO for the OT period." It seems when you go backwards with the two statements that make up the sentence it makes it more clear that the unused extra period TO's are also carried over.

If I receive 1 additional TO during each overtime period plus any unused 2nd half regulation timeouts then if I still had 3 at the end of regulation, for the first overtime period I will have 4. Everyone agrees with that. At the end of the first overtime period nobody scores and no timeouts were used, I will receive 1 additinal TO for each overtime period now giving me 5.
The wording says I get an additional one for each overtime period. Additional means that you add so therefore I am going to receive another one. It doesn't say that I max out on TO.

For those of you who are on the side that says they don't carry over, the argument about which timeouts are removed from the number of timeouts makes sense.

Team A has all 3 timeouts remaining at the end of regulation. Team B has 1 timeout remaining. Game goes to overtime (NF Suggested). I will refer to remaining 4th quarter timeouts as *R* timeouts (for regulation. I will refer to additional OT timeouts as *O* for overtime.

To start the overtime, team A has 4 timeouts (3 *R* and 1 *O*) and team B has 2 timeouts (1 *R* and 1 *O*). Team A takes a timeout during the 1st overtime reducing there number to 3 remaining. Which timeout did they just take? The *R* or the *O*?

Team B does not take a timeout during the 1st overtime period. As the game goes to the second overtime, how many timeout does each team have? The answer is 4th Quarter timeouts + 2nd OT timeouts. But which timeout did team A take? One of there three *R* timeouts or the sole *O* timeout? It makes a difference in the number of timeouts they get to start the 2nd overtime.

Illinois carries them over from OT to OT.


EDITED:

If I were king for a day, I'd allow them to carry timeouts over from OT to OT to a maximum of 3 timeouts for any overtime period.




[Edited by mikesears on Jul 20th, 2005 at 03:10 PM]

You do get "one additional" TO for each OT, "plus the "regular 2nd half" so I think you never will have more than 4.

I am going to check for sure with our state supervisor, and I think we are going to have to agree to disagree, and I'm ok with that. Good discussion.

If you re-read your post above, you use the word "DURING" -the same as the NF suggested OT procedure. The way I understand that wording is you get one TO during each OT plus your unused 2nd half TO's. The procedure never mentions carrying over OT TO's from one OT to the next.

Then re-read the portion of your post below. There you have substituted the work "FOR" in place of "DURING". If the NF suggested procedure used the word "FOR" instead of "DURING", then I would agree that any unused OT TO's would accrue to the next OT, but they don't say "FOR", they say "DURING", so I don't agree with that interpretation. We kicked this issue around in North Carolina a few years ago and the State Office decided that the OT TO's do not carry over. But, if your State thinks they should, then they do.

Fed overtime TO's
 

Since overtime is merely an extension of the second half and "all second half TO's carry over to overtime" then does that not indicate that the TO's should accumulate?

Re: Fed overtime TO's
 

It says "specifically" that "all 2nd half <b>regulation</b> TO's carry over." That is different then saying just all 2nd half or all 2nd half and overtime TO's carry over.

Yeah, see, this is what I was talking about. This hasn't cleared up anything.

Jack051 I understand what you are saying but you are leaving out the word additional. Second half timeouts and 1 additional during each overtime period. So if I have 3 regulation timeouts and 1 OT TO and don't use any then I receive an additional TO for the second overtime period. I would agree with you guys if the word additional was not in there.

The whole thing is it says "one additional plus <b>all 2nd half regulation TO's</b> NOT plus all other remaining TO's. I don't think any more minds will be changed, so I'm maxed out with this unless a new revelation is found.

I'm maxed out as well...
Bottom line is this, DO WHAT YOUR STATE SAYS TO DO.

Lets get back to the original question. Any other exmaples of ways team-B can score in standard unmodified NFHS OT?

How did this work for you guys in Utah? What were the pros and cons with the change? Did you need to revise after a one year use?

In KY, we use the book version, TO's do carry over. This procedure is quiet confusing and does create problems with officials. If you don't use the procedure much, you forget about it. Most officials do go over it at half time if they feel OT is possible.

For those who get the handbook, this year's handbook clears up the mystery of if timeouts are cumulative.

Page 43, Time-Out Section, Charged Time-Out.
<i>
One additional time-out is provided for use during each extra period. The unused second-half time-outs and the overtime timeout(s) are accumulative.</i>

If you are using unmodified NFHS rules for overtime, timeouts accumulate for any subsequent overtime period(s).



[Edited by mikesears on Jul 25th, 2005 at 06:06 PM]

Nice find Mike.
I did some searching of old handbooks to see when those words were added.

95-96 (and all prior editions): not clear, but seems to be implied.
97-98: (can't locate)
99-00 (and all subsequent editions): spelled out just as you noted.

Where can I purchase the handbook?

You can get it directly from the NFHS.


http://www.nfhs.com/index.asp?cmd=sh...ory&param_0=64


Also, some State Association offfices also have the books. I'd try your state office first.

Thanks, Mike. Is it any more accurate than the manuals from your experience? What does it contain that makes it worth buying?

I like the handbook and I find it useful. It tries to explain the rules and the application of those rules in plain english.

I'm not sure to what "manuals" you are refering so I can't give an opinion on that.

The rule book, case book, etc.

Ah. The handbook is only published every other year so sometimes, the stuff it talks about doesn't apply after a rule change in a year it isn't published.

It is usually pretty accurate but it doesn't deal in the extreme details like the casebook. If anyone else gets the handbook, I am sure your comments would be welcome too.