According to the NCAA...

AR Husker Fan

AR Husker Fan

Team HuskerBoard
Well, appears I’ve been wrong about this. I thought that offsetting penalties would not result in an extension of the game. According to the NCAA Rules, offsetting penalties that occur during a down in which time expires causes the period to be extended.

Rule 3-2-3:

Extension of Periods

ARTICLE 3. A period shall be extended until a down (other than a try), free from live-ball fouls not penalized as dead-ball fouls, has been played when:

a. A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) not penalized as a dead-ball foul that occurs during a down in which time expires (Exception: Rule 10-2-2-g-1) (A.R. 3-2-3-I-VIII).

b. Offsetting fouls occur during a down in which time expires.

c. An inadvertent whistle is sounded or an official signals the ball dead during a down in which time expires.

As best I can tell, had the refs called offsetting penalties on that last play, the play would have been repeated from the previous spot. Rule 5-2-8:

Fouls by Both Teams

ARTICLE 8. If offsetting fouls occur during a down, that down shall be repeated (Rule 10-1-4 Exceptions) (A.R. 10-1-4-II-X).

And Rule 10-1-4

Offsetting Fouls

ARTICLE 4. If live-ball fouls by both teams are reported to the referee, each such foul is an offsetting foul, the penalties cancel each other, and the down is replayed (A.R. 10-1-4-II, IX and X).

 
Their must be something missing in that rule you have overlooked.

With the head of officials coming on ESPNEWS and stating that the game would have ended with offsetting penalties, I tend to trust him.

 
well by god lets get both teams back on the field for one last play so we can shut them down and the crybabies (not all of UM's fans) will have to move on to something else to b!^@h about.

 
well by god lets get both teams back on the field for one last play so we can shut them down and the crybabies (not all of UM's fans) will have to move on to something else to b!^@h about.
Click to expand...
:rollin :rollin :rollin

They would find something!!

 
Their must be something missing in that rule you have overlooked.
With the head of officials coming on ESPNEWS and stating that the game would have ended with offsetting penalties, I tend to trust him.
Click to expand...
I provided the link to the NCCA Rule Book - feel free to click it and read the manual.

All exceptions applicable to the rules involve instances in which the ball is turned over to the defensive team (failed 4th down, fumble, interception) and the defensive team subsequently commits a foul on the same play. As an example:

Michigan starts the play, passes to the receiver. During the pass, Michigan holds. While the play continues, the receiver fumbles the ball and Nebraska recovers, and during the return, blocks in the back. In that case, the rules say that Nebraska can decline the holding penalty, retain the ball, and would be penalized for the block, but that time would not be extended.

 
After looking thru the rule book, the game would have still been finished.

Their would have been two different sets of offsetting penalties on the play. One for the players and one for the coaches. No coach, team official or representative can leaving the coaching box and enter the field of play. If they do, it is penalized as a dead ball foul which would have been offsetting. A dead ball foul cannot be replayed.

That may have been what the official on ESPNEWS is pointing at. You know he isn't going on national TV as the head of officials and be wrong on any interpretation or ruling.

 
After looking thru the rule book, the game would have still been finished.
Their would have been two different sets of offsetting penalties on the play. One for the players and one for the coaches. No coach, team official or representative can leaving the coaching box and enter the field of play. If they do, it is penalized as a dead ball foul which would have been offsetting. A dead ball foul cannot be replayed.

That may have been what the official on ESPNEWS is pointing at. You know he isn't going on national TV as the head of officials and be wrong on any interpretation or ruling.
Click to expand...
That could be it. What's odd, given the Cal-Stanford fiasco, is that the NCAA didn't see fit to include exactly that scenario in the explanatory remarks. You would think that they would have done so.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top