Wisconsin overtime controversy
 

From last weekend's playoffs. Wisconsin uses the college OT rule (1st & 10 from the 25).

In overtime (top half of the inning), Red scores touchdown and kick PAT.
Teams gather at sideline before the next series.
White's offense comes on field, Red defense still huddled at sideline. Official tells Red the ball is about ready to be blown ready for play.
Red doesn't immediately break huddle (they weren't doing anything unusual or unsporting - just slow).
R blows ready for play while Red is still on sideline and White walks in for a touchdown. 2-point conversion is good to win the game.

100% correct call according to the rules. 100% stupid in my opinion. An old timer told me once "we are here to play football".

The correct ruling should be delay of game on the defense. Team A should not be allowed to snap it in this situation.

Pure BS! If there ever is something that we could do that deserves sanctions, this would be it

Speaking of OT while on the subject. Two teams in a tough district went into overtime a couple of years back. Team A who had the ball first in the 2OT either didn't score or kicked a FG, I don't remember. Team B won the game with a TD. They then kicked the extra point. I inquired about this on a HS football website, and they said since the district race to make the playoffs was so tight, both coaches agreed to do so. The reason being point differential.

Is this proper procedure in TX HS football, or did they get it wrong in the end. With four teams making the playoffs from one district now, I thought was kind of a moot point.

If a District uses positive points tiebreaker we have to allow them to run the extra point, even if it could not change outcome of game

I just find it bizarre that OT points would be figured in "point differential"! It should go into the standings calculation as a win by 0.

I think the time between top & bottom of a tiebreaker frame should be considered "an intermission between periods" requiring invocation of 3-4-2b.3, although a case could be made that it's the start of a "half", which makes for a bigger penalty. There's an AR saying the lesser penalty should be given for not being ready following "any timeout", so maybe this should be considered that.

This was on last Friday in a second round game. On Saturday morning everyone in the state (it seems) knew what had happened.

We had a second round game in the early afternoon Saturday and the visiting coach asked me what we would do in that situation. How do you say, "I would never allow a snap in that situation" without throwing the other crew under the bus?

After doing something this egregious, they deserve to be under the bus. I wouldn't give a second thought to answering the question honestly.

"I would abide by the rules coach." That will leave him wondering.

Is it possible they deserve a little bit of bus?

"I wasn't at that game and don't know exactly what happened, but I can guarantee you we would not allow a snap with the defense at the sidelines."

"Coach, while we won't have a snap until you are out there, that snap will be a bit closer to the goal line than you expected."

"I'm not sure I know all the facts of that situation - I haven't talked to the crew yet. From what I've heard, I am not sure we'd have handled it the same way, but who knows what happened that we've NOT heard."