Hypothetical NCAA OT penalty situation

[bearclause]

Last weekend I went to a single OT game won after a team:

1) Scored a TD and extra point in the first series.
2) Sealed the victory with an interception in the second series.

However - the intercepting defender kept on running and was tracked down at the opponents' 15 yd line. The final margin of victory was 7 points.

A bunch of us interested fans have gone over Rule 3-1-3 (on extra periods) in the 2006 NCAA Football Rules. Particularly intriguing are the parts dealing with post change of possession, where most penalties are automatically declined and it's stated that there can be no additional 1st and 10. We're wondering what happens in the hypothetic OT situations where:

a) Team A (original offensive team) member commits a post-interception penalty that prevents a Team B member (who intercepted the ball) from potentially scoring. My reading suggests that the play would be over, and the only penalty enforcement would be on a personal foul/unsportsmanlike conduct if the game is not yet decided, and only on the next play (2nd series or beginning of new OT period). In our case it would obviously be over, but what happens if it's in the first series?

b) Team A manages to recover the ball after it's fumbled by a Team B player who originally intercepted the ball. Members of Team B think it's over and start wandering onto the field. Is is possible that Team A would be given a replay of the down for illegal participation? My interpretation of the NCAA OT rule is that pretty much all fouls are declined and nothing can force a replay of a series after the initial turnover, although a score can be cancelled if the scoring team commits a foul. I've heard some suggestions that it only makes sense to allow Team A to replay the down where the ball is blown dead plus the penalty yeardage, although the rules don't seem to address that possibility.

c) Same as B, but maybe one Team B player not originally participating in the play sees the ball is still live and tackles the Team A ball carrier. That would seem to clearly be a case where the referees discretion to award a score could be possible. I'm still wondering if the discretion to replay the down is applicable given that the rules otherwise state that an OT series is over once there's a turnover, and is there really any replaying of the down on a change of possession?

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by bearclause

a) Team A (original offensive team) member commits a post-interception penalty that prevents a Team B member (who intercepted the ball) from potentially scoring. My reading suggests that the play would be over, and the only penalty enforcement would be on a personal foul/unsportsmanlike conduct if the game is not yet decided, and only on the next play (2nd series or beginning of new OT period). In our case it would obviously be over, but what happens if it's in the first series?

The only fouls which will see the penalty enforced on the next play are flagrant personal fouls, unsportsmanlike conduct fouls, or live ball fouls that are penalized as dead ball fouls. That means that when B starts their series the penalty could be enforced such that instead of starting at the 25, they would start at the 12 and 1/2 yard line (assuming there was just one such foul to enforce)

Originally Posted by bearclause

b) Team A manages to recover the ball after it's fumbled by a Team B player who originally intercepted the ball. Members of Team B think it's over and start wandering onto the field. Is is possible that Team A would be given a replay of the down for illegal participation? My interpretation of the NCAA OT rule is that pretty much all fouls are declined and nothing can force a replay of a series after the initial turnover, although a score can be cancelled if the scoring team commits a foul. I've heard some suggestions that it only makes sense to allow Team A to replay the down where the ball is blown dead plus the penalty yeardage, although the rules don't seem to address that possibility.

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.

Originally Posted by bearclause

c) Same as B, but maybe one Team B player not originally participating in the play sees the ball is still live and tackles the Team A ball carrier. That would seem to clearly be a case where the referees discretion to award a score could be possible. I'm still wondering if the discretion to replay the down is applicable given that the rules otherwise state that an OT series is over once there's a turnover, and is there really any replaying of the down on a change of possession?

Same as B but would be very willing to award the score if it seemed A had a pretty good chance to score

[bearclause]

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.

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.

[TXMike]

Did you see the ending to the Alamo Bowl last year? What do you think about that?

[voiceoflg]

I'm not familiar with NCAA, but isn't it similar to NFHS where once the ball changes possession it is immediately dead? So there can not be a post-interception fumble nor a post-interception live ball foul. Am I wrong?

[TXMike]

NCAA It stays live after the turnover.

[bearclause]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Did you see the ending to the Alamo Bowl last year? What do you think about that?

Might have seen highlights, but I read about it. Sounded like the officials considered it a no harm, no foul situation and let the Nebraska players wandering onto the field slide. Frankly for the 1982 Stanford at Cal game (everyone has heard of that right?) there were also sideline players from both teams wandering onto the field thinking it was over but not otherwise interfering with the play. Now the Stanford Band was apparently a big nightmare for the officials - not the least of which was they couldn't see what was going on with the actual players.

As far as we can tell, the NCAA OT rules are designed to ensure that a series won't continue past the current play once there's a turnover. It almost sounds as if there's free rein to commit a penalty (other than dead ball types or illegal interference) by Team A if there's a turnover. I could see a desperate attempt to trip an intercepting player. Even for the illegal interference you stated that you'd be hesistant to do something creative (i.e. give a recovering team one down) once the ball has already been turned over in that play.