Per Rogers Redding, it is declined by rule, no score. With exception to illegal touching and intentional grounding, all other penalties are "distance penalties" regardless of where they occur. As written currently, it is declined by rule. We may see a rule change coming this year to cover this play because it has created a lot of discussion. As mentioned in my other post I sent him this play as a "what if " question. It was a once in a blue moon situation. But now that he has seen that this situation is possible I think they would give it another look and prevent Team B from being able to foul in the end zone to prevent a safety. But currently, the penalty is declined by rule according to Redding.

As Jason mentioned, it's a distance penalty. Just because it's possible to decline a distance portion of a foul doesn't mean it's not a distance penalty.

I'm part of a very good rules group that meets all summer and I remember covering this exact scenario with them this past summer. It was sorta laughed off as a one-in-a-million scenario, but now that we've seen it happen...

Then I think some research as to what the Rules Committee meant by "distance penalty" is in order. In the 2012 NCAA rule book, the phrase occurs exactly 3 times. Once is in 10-2-6, half-the-distance enforcements, and another is in the summary of penalties referencing that provision. The other is 5-2-6, "Fouls Between Downs".

Meanwhile "distance penalties" occurs twice. Once is in the provision referenced here, 8-3-4a, and the other is in 10-2-5, regarding penalties whose distance enforcement would result in free kick restraining lines inside the 5.

I find it very reasonable to interpret all of these occurrences as referring to the distance portion of a penalty that includes a distance enforcement. Otherwise, consider 5-2-6 in light of what "distance penalty" would have to mean as opposed to simply "penalty". The enforcement for any infraction between downs that counts officially as a penalty includes a distance, so the word "distance" in "distance penalty" as used there is superfluous in distinguishing penalties. But as the Committee should not be thought to have put in a superfluous word, the only meaning left would be the distance portion of a penalty. We know that it's possible to decline the distance portion of a penalty separately from the spot the penalty is taken from. So that's what "distance penalty" must mean wherever it occurs in the rule book.

Such a meaning is reasonable, because after possession changes on a try, there's never going to be a down repeated by what had been team B. The only penalties on team B of any consequence are those that prevent a score by B (in which case the spot is immaterial), those that result in a safety (as discussed here, where the distance is immaterial), and those that would be enforced on a succeeding down (which this provision explictly treats separately).

So although the Rules Committee could and should be clearer, Redding kicked this call.

AR 8-3-4 II has a similar play except the foul is a clip in the end zone. The AR states the penalty is declined by rule. As we know NCAA rules have exceptions. The only exception for penalties that are not declined by rule after a change of possession on Trys are Flagrant PF's, UC, Dead Ball PF's, and Live Balls fouls treated as Dead Ball fouls. All other fouls are declined by rule and any scores are cancelled. An illegal forward pass does not fall under any of those exceptions.

So, with this AR it certainly appears to be consistent with Reddings interpretation because even a clipping foul has a "distance penalty"

I hate to disagree with Redding, of course.

But if you read this rule, the distance penalty is cancelled. Fine there. Step 2 - Scores by the team that committed the penalty are cancelled. In this case, the score is not made by the team that committed the penalty - it's scored by the other team. This is more similar to a play where A goes for 2, B commits a distance penalty, and A scores anyway - the penalty is declined, but the score is not cancelled.

Which makes much more sense.

It may make more sense, but it's not the way it's enforced in NCAA at this particular time. As Jason mentioned, there's an approved ruling where there's a clip in the end zone on a try and it, too, is declined by rule.

Maybe this will get changed, maybe it won't, but as of right now, there wouldn't be a safety scored in a game played under NCAA rules if that illegal forward pass was completed and the ball came out of the end zone.