[Husker] officiating question regarding final play

[Bob Clouston (rclousto)]

I've been reading the rules
(www.ncaa.org/library/rules/2005/2005_football_rules.pdf) about a few
things regarding that last play.

Rule 3.2.3.b says that a period is extended after offsetting penalties,
so Michigan would've gotten another play, from the original line of
scrimmage.  I would guess we'd call a timeout and talk about how to
cover this play better, and to make sure everyone continues playing
until the whistle blows!  We had a couple guys watch the play go right
by them.  

It's not completely clear to me that there was a penalty to be called.
Rule 9.1.4 talks about illegal interference.  I didn't see anyone
actually interfering with the play.  In fact some of the Michigan
players were a lot closer to interfering over by their sideline, though
they all seemed to get out of the way by the time the runner got there.
I don't know if they got in the way of any defender.  9.1.4.b talks
about participation by more than 11 players, that could apply, assuming
that being on the field equates to participation.  That probably would
apply, to both teams.  9-1-5-a talks about being between the coaching
box and the sidelines, and gives the referee the discretion to giving a
warning or throwing a flag.  So I don't really know.  If you wanted to
strictly enforce nobody other than your 11 players on the field during a
play, you could throw a lot of flags on coaches and players crossing the
sidelines.  This was an extreme case, but again, was there any
interference with the play?

Had there been interference, such as a sideline player actually getting
in the way of the runner or knocking him down, the ref would have the
discretion to replay a down or even award a score--whatever the ref
deems equitable, by rule 9-1-4.  This happened in the 1954 Cotton Bowl,
when Tommy Lewis came off the Alabama bench to tackle Dickie Moegel, who
was probably going to score a TD for Rice.  The ref awarded a touchdown
to Rice.

I've heard claims elsewhere (Huskerpedia) that the offense can't advance
a recovered fumble in the final 2 minutes, unless the fumbler recovers.
I don't see this anywhere in the rules, except for 4th down (rule
4.1.3.j, also rule 7.2.2).  I think this is an oversight in the rules,
it should also be applied to the final play since it is really like 4th
down, but it isn't in the rules so it was correct to let play continue.
And, the spirit of the rule is to disallow an intentional fumble, to
keep the ball alive when the runner is about to be tackled.  This was a
pretty wild lateral, but he did have a target for it and in fact hit
him, so Michigan really wasn't trying to fumble, it just happened.

Somebody here raised the point that the Michigan end went out of bounds
early in the play but then got the ball later, and should've been out of
the play.  All I can find for this (without looking too exhaustively) is
that a *receiver* can't catch a pass after running out of bounds (rule
7.3.4) but regains eligibility if the ball is touched by the defense
(rule 7.3.5).  I don't know if this rule applies to fumble but it would
seem that since Nebraska did touch the ball everyone would regain
eligibility.

Most likely this will be a good case study for officials, but the
conclusion may be that the refs handled this correctly, or at least well
enough.

Bob Clouston

-----Original Message-----
From: Mike Nolan [mailto:nolan at romaine.tssi.com] 
Sent: Thursday, December 29, 2005 11:47 AM
To: husker at romaine.tssi.com
Subject: [Husker] officiating question regarding final play

I know that a half cannot end on a defensive penalty, but as far as I
can tell that is not the case for offsetting penalties.  Further, there
is no provision to restore any time on the clock.

Thus, had they called both Nebraska and Michigan for having players and
coaches on the field, the game would have been over, right?

That play will get shown at every meeting of college football officials
in the next year or two, won't it!
--
Mike Nolan