Fed OT Rules Question

[paulsonj72]

This was on a fan(I know but it it a legit rules question) and here it is. This the exact text of the question

"Team A scores a touchdown in the first half of the first overtime. Team B is facing a fourth down and goal and of course has to go for the touchdown. The quarterback runs a sweep and is forced out of bounds short of the goal line. Another defender then hits the quarterback and is flagged for a late hit.

The question is, since the flag came after the play was concluded and is, in essence, a dead ball foul, is the game over, or does team B still get a chance to score?"

I will take your answers back to the fourm where this originated and specifiy that the question was answered by officilas. Thank you very much.

[Forksref]

The series and thus the game is over if the score is not tied. If the foul was flagrant, you can report it to the state, league, etc. If there was another OT, you would enforce it on the succeeding play.

[HLin NC]

One of those calls you better make via cell phone on the ride home if you sense the police don't have enough back-up at the stadium!

[jTheUmp]

+1 to both responses.

It's unfortunate, but that's how the rule is.

If that situation happens to my crew, we'd probably be on the phone with our assigner on the way home so he's prepared when he gets the phone call from the losing school's administration.

[HLin NC]

I had a similar situation in Week 1. My sideline was already hot (rightfully so, probably) over a fumble I had ruled in the 3rd qtr. that was picked up by B and run in for a score. Next series they throw a pick and they go from being down by 7 to down by 21.

4th qtr we have what appears to be a PF on the far sideline by their opponent on 4th down. They did not reach the LTG. I was pretty sure the ball was going over. The HC and I are standing below the numbers, waiting for the R's signal. I leaned over and said "you know you aren't keeping the ball if this is a dead ball foul, right?" I cringed and waited to get blasted but all he said was "I hate that rule".

Whew.

[Robert Goodman]

To those who "hate that rule", I gotta ask, how far retroactive would you prefer things to get?

[jTheUmp]

I think the rule is "unfortunate" in the sense that it essentially gives the defense a "free shot" at an opponent. However, that doesn't mean that I think the rule should be changed, for exactly the reason you imply.

If the rulesmakers try to introduce some type of "continuing action" dead-ball-as-a-live-ball foul, all that's going to do is make things worse, as each official's judgement of the "continuing action" is going to be different.

[jchamp]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I think the rule is "unfortunate" in the sense that it essentially gives the defense a "free shot" at an opponent. However, that doesn't mean that I think the rule should be changed, for exactly the reason you imply.

If the rulesmakers try to introduce some type of "continuing action" dead-ball-as-a-live-ball foul, all that's going to do is make things worse, as each official's judgement of the "continuing action" is going to be different.

Agreed. While I personally appreciate flexibility, any time the rules call for an official's judgment, inconsistency is a guaranteed result. The only situations this is desirable is when it's determined culturally to be a part of the game that we collectively accept (e.g., an umpire's strike zone). Football players, coaches and fans demand consistent officiating to the n-th degree. I will take clear and impossible to misapply rules that are not perfect over having to enforce based on my judgment. Even if the rule is not fair, it is known (sometimes), accepted, and universally applied (usually).

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by jTheUmp

I think the rule is "unfortunate" in the sense that it essentially gives the defense a "free shot" at an opponent. However, that doesn't mean that I think the rule should be changed, for exactly the reason you imply.

Especially when you consider he could fairly easily arrange to get a free shot at him, say, 2 days later when there are no witnesses.