Awarded score: period extended?
 

Please answer this one for as many codes as you know the answer to.

During a down in which time for period 1 or 3 expires, A1 is about to catch a pass in B's end zone, but instead catches a non-game ball thrown into his vicinity by a non-participant who had been invited by team B into their bench area. The referee awards a touchdown to team A for an unfair act by team B interfering with play. Following completion of the try, is the period extended a down for the kickoff? Or is an awarded score treated differently in that regard from an accepted penalty?

Robert

Since the referee has the option to enforce the penalty that he deems equitable, I would not extend.

Canadian Ruling
 

CANADIAN RULING:

I believe this situation would have to fall under Interference by an Unauthorized Person. If not, then the elastic power rule should be used (2-3-1).

Without my book with me right now, I would do one of the two:

• award a touchdown and continue with the convert attempt as usual (IUP)
• award 1D/G at the B-1 yard line (EPR)

OK, but that doesn't answer my question about extending the period. It would seem the equity would lie with not doing so, but I didn't know whether the rules considered such an award a penalty for which the ordinary procedures applied.

BTW, I can think of perfectly innocent ways the scenario I wrote of could come up. A team might have a ball boy fetch balls that land far out of play, and then he comes back and sees one of the big kids on the field apparently waiting for the ball.

Robert

So as the is receiver watching the ball thrown from the QB which is coming down for him to catch he then sees another ball come into his vision and instead of catching the one that he has been watching, and saw the QB throw, catches the one that he now sees??? I just don't see that happening.

If I were the coach, I'd throw a jersey on that kid and get him into the game! That's a tough angle, throwing from beyond the 25 on the sideline.

Who says he stayed in the team bench area? I just wrote that he was invited there to indicate he was there at the behest of team B, so that you could "blame" team B regardless of intentions. He might've come back with the ball from behind the stands, walked under the rope at the end zone, and just tossed it up underhand with both hands.

Or maybe it was team B's QB being a wise guy. I just wanted to come up with an interference scenario that screamed either "unfair act" or "equitable penalty" to see whether extension of the period (either as mandatory or an option for the non-offending side, depending on the code) was included automatically (which doesn't seem to make sense but could be required anyway). I didn't want it to be an act of God that you might try, or not try, to compensate for, but something that could be attributed to one team whether deliberate or otherwise. If it was a scenario that could only come about via deliberate action of one team, then you might argue for extension of the period as part of a penalty, but I tried to purposely leave it unclear on that point.

Robert

If awarding the TD, then the try is attempted at the same end of the field. After the try is complete, the quarter ends.

If awarded 1D/G @ 1, then I believe that the quarter is ended before the snap takes place.

So, in each case: the period is not extended.

Canadian Ruling
 

In Canada, if a foul results in an awarded score, the non-offending team has the option to also terminate the period. So in the case of interference by unauthorized persons, it would be up to the non-offending team to decide which direction the kick-off would occur in.

Would that also apply to a "half-frame" of a CFL tiebreaker shootout? (Football Canada doesn't use those, does it?) Or does the general rule that a score or convert ends a half-frame take precedence?

Robert

Canadian Ruling
 

Both CFL and amatuer Canadian codes use the shoot-out. The shoot-out period ends when a team scores or a team loses possession. There is no provision for extending the period for fouls.

Maybe I'm missing the simplicity of this question...In an NFHS situation the period is extended for the try (an untimed down), and then ends.

Say, I just had a thought (?) Since the award results in a TD, under the new rule can the offended team have the penalty on the KO? Of course would this mean that there is no TD to have a KO after? so then there would be a penalty that allows the choice of when to accept, which means that....... OH I'm sooo confused...:eek:

Actually what I was thinking about is whether an awarded penalty is to be considered an accepted penalty. I know I wouldn't be offering A the choice in this particular case. Also If it was a situation that didn't result in a score I would extend (if needed) again without bothering to give A the choice.

This seems like a classic "Never going to happen" situation, but as it appears the underlying question is whether or not the period would be extended, or even if a yardage penalty would be assessed on the ensuing kickoff, whenever it happens, the prescribed penalty for an Unfair Act under the NF code (NF 10.9.1-4) is, "The referee enforces any penalty he considers equitable, including the award of a score.", which would suggest it is the referee's decision whether, or not, to extend the period or to allow for a yardage assessment on the ensuing kickoff if he decided either was "equitable".