NCAA: retain possession after blocked field goal that crosses neutral zone?

[humax]

I think there was a bad call that could have decided the overtime outcome of last Saturday's FAU-ULM game in Ft. Lauderdale.

In the first OT, FAU got the ball first, and its possession ended with a blocked field goal, so the ball went to ULM, which needed only an FG to win. They worked the ball down to the 9 yard line and then tried a field goal on third down. The kick was blocked, ULM touched it at about the 5 yard line, and then it went into the end zone.

It seems clear to me that, as soon as ULM touched it at the 5, FAU had the option of taking possession at that point, so that should have been the end of the first OT.

Instead, after a long delay, the officials called a 15 yard illegal touching penalty against ULM, moved the ball back to the 24 yard line, and said it was still ULM's ball, repeat third down.

ULM then ran a running play and then tried another field goal, which was again blocked, so the call on the first try ended up irrelevant to the outcome.

The two local papers had different explanations for the call. The Herald said the ball was recovered in the end zone by ULM, so FAU had to accept the penalty and give ULM another down or decline it and lose the game. The Sun-Sentinel says the ball was recovered in the end zone by FAU but there was an inadvertent whistle after the illegal touch.

In my mind, it doesn't matter who recovered in the end zone or whether there was a whistle after the illegal touch. According to NCAA Rule 6-3-2, as soon as it was touched by ULM on the 5 yard line, FAU had the option of taking possession at that point, so the first OT should have ended. The rules don't seem to say anything about a 15 yard penalty for such an illegal touch.

Anyhow, there's a good video of the play at:
http://blogs.trb.com/sports/college/fau/blog/ (scroll down to THE CALL)
The ULM touch at the 5 yard line is very clear, but it's not clear who ended up with the ball in the end zone (if that matters).

Thanks for any info about this.

Regards,
H

[JasonTX]

Perhaps they were ruling it illegal batting or illegal kicking. Not that I agree with it but that's the only way that I could see them marking off a 15 yard penalty and that would be the proper enforcement. But then team B would just decline the penalty to avoid a replay of the down.

[cmathews]

I can see and like Jason, not necessarily agree with, an illegal batting/kicking. Those acts have to be intentional, and I am not sure this play has that. As for the touching, it appears to me that the first touching would be ignored because it happened in the expanded neutral zone. That being said, the ball does eventually get touched beyond the neutral zone, and touching precedes control, therefore the ball is dead at the spot whether that spot is in the EZ or field of play. A scrimmage kick by K that ends up being dead not in possesion is awarded to R. So the short answer is I agree, it should have been awarded to R most likely around the 2 or 3 yard line.