The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #1 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 17, 2005, 06:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2001
Posts: 778
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?
__________________
Church Basketball "The brawl that begins with a prayer"
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 17, 2005, 06:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
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.
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old Sun Jul 17, 2005, 07:33pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 45
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 With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 18, 2005, 08:47am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Clinton Township, NJ
Posts: 2,065
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 recommended way to resolve ties--not a mandated one. I've noticed a lot more states going to the NCAA procedure like bjudge described.
__________________
Bob M.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 18, 2005, 11:11am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Bloomington, IL
Posts: 1,319
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.
__________________
Mike Sears
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 18, 2005, 11:43am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2002
Posts: 125
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.)
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 18, 2005, 12:00pm
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally posted by jfurdell
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!
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 18, 2005, 12:35pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 104
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.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 18, 2005, 02:53pm
MJT MJT is offline
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Alton, Iowa
Posts: 1,796
Quote:
Originally posted by JDLJ
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 plus any unused 2nd half regulation timeout's."

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.




Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 18, 2005, 03:16pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 104
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.
Reply With Quote
  #11 (permalink)  
Old Mon Jul 18, 2005, 08:51pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
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.
Reply With Quote
  #12 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 19, 2005, 07:48am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally posted by JDLJ
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.
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.
__________________
If the play is designed to fool someone, make sure you aren't the fool.
Reply With Quote
  #13 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 19, 2005, 09:21am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 104
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.
Reply With Quote
  #14 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 19, 2005, 09:27am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Pittsburgh, PA
Posts: 522
Quote:
Originally posted by JDLJ
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).
__________________
If the play is designed to fool someone, make sure you aren't the fool.
Reply With Quote
  #15 (permalink)  
Old Tue Jul 19, 2005, 02:52pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2004
Posts: 24
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.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46pm.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1