Questionable Calls Superbowl 43

[daggo66]

Originally Posted by pedr

At the end of the first half, the personal foul by Arizona prior to the interception would have been tacked onto the end of the run, so if the interception hadn't been run back for a touchdown, Pittsburgh would have got an extra play. (I didn't realise this, and it seems counter-intuitive, as the foul played no part in the events following the interception. But I'm just a fan, not an official! How is it in other rule-sets?)

Finally, roughing the holder is a foul, though note that running into the holder isn't (unlike running into the kicker) so there needed to be an element of unnecessary roughness. Pereira said, "he's not coming off a block"... I suppose running unstopped in the direction and running over the holder was enough to count as 'roughing'. He said he's not seen the foul called before!

I'm not sure about NFL rules, but under NFHS the foul at the end of the half would not have been "tacked onto the end of the run." The foul occurred before the change of possession, in order to keep the ball Pittsburgh would have to decline the penalty. If the penalty was accepted Arizona would have had an untimed down after the penalty was administered.

The barometer for roughing the holder would be the same as the kicker. Meaning if he was displaced it would be roughing as opposed to running into.