Started By
Message
Curious situation in the FCS Title Game…
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:01 pm
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:01 pm
So in OT Illinois State has their extra point blocked. In theory, unless I’m mistaken, if the blocked point had been run back, I assume that counts for 2 points the other way. However one of the Illinois players decides to grab himself a whole fist of facemask to stop the return. Flags are thrown for the obvious foul but then they say at that point the rules have the penalty declined automatically.
My question is, with those rules what is there to disincentivize players from committing egregious fouls like that to not give up returns? That seems a bit odd to me. Did anyone else think the same thing? Great game by the way!
My question is, with those rules what is there to disincentivize players from committing egregious fouls like that to not give up returns? That seems a bit odd to me. Did anyone else think the same thing? Great game by the way!
13
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:04 pm to Crimson1st
rare circumstance so could be a loophole. i imagine it will get looked at in the offseason based on what you’re describing.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:05 pm to Crimson1st
There’s a rule in the books the refs could possibly invoke to award the points. A “palpably unfair” act.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:05 pm to Crimson1st
I didn’t understand the explanation from the ref, but I just thought the confines of the field were limited to the 25 yard line in OT.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:10 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
rare circumstance so could be a loophole. i imagine it will get looked at in the offseason based on what you’re describing.
It isn’t a loophole though. The rule book actually gives the refs extremely wide discretion to make calls in highly abnormal situations.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:11 pm to Draconian Sanctions
quote:
rare circumstance so could be a loophole. i imagine it will get looked at in the offseason based on what you’re describing.
Yes, to me that was just really odd. I felt like, since I had never seen that happen before, that the “fair” thing to do was to give Montana State one play from the one yard line for the 2 points and of course then they would get their match possession after that. I think that’s fair because even swapping the 2 points to Montana State, that would still be a 4pt lead for Illinois State and necessitated Montana State to score a TD to win BUT it would have made Montana State not have to kick their extra point to win , so it would have helped some…not excessively though.
To me that is something that needs to be revisited because you can have players being blatant in committing penalties to make up for their screw up such as having their extra point blocked…that’s on them and they should still have to play by the rules.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:15 pm to Bigbens42
quote:
There’s a rule in the books the refs could possibly invoke to award the points. A “palpably unfair” act.
Ok that’s cool. The ref in my opinion shouldn’t have said it was an “automatic declination” though. He should’ve said his ruling was a discretionary ruling and explained it that way. To me, that facemask was pretty egregious and clearly kept the Montana State defender from having a chance to score a return conversion.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:17 pm to Crimson1st
quote:
Ok that’s cool. The ref in my opinion shouldn’t have said it was an “automatic declination” though. He should’ve said his ruling was a discretionary ruling and explained it that way. To me, that facemask was pretty egregious and clearly kept the Montana State defender from having a chance to score a return conversion.
Yeah the wording was dumb. You *have* to be extremely conservative with wielding that kind of power by nature though.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:18 pm to Bigbens42
quote:
It isn’t a loophole though. The rule book actually gives the refs extremely wide discretion to make calls in highly abnormal situations.
That’s interesting and similar to what another poster said BUT the ref said it was an “automatic declaration” and that’s what I found odd. He should’ve been clearer if it was up to his discretion as you are saying. I guess that’s what caught my attention, was how he said it was automatic which indicates it isn’t up to him. Also as I mentioned I’m not exactly sure, if it was up to him, what more he could’ve asked for in the way of an obvious fouls which clearly prevented the defender from scoring a return conversion.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:21 pm to Bigbens42
quote:
Yeah the wording was dumb. You *have* to be extremely conservative with wielding that kind of power by nature though.
I agree but the facemask was pretty profound on the “tackle” so even on a discretionary situation that seemed pretty obvious to not give the points if that was indeed at the discretion of the ref.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:36 pm to Crimson1st
Regular penalties aren’t enforced on an OT change of possession, but I think an unsportsmanlike penalty can be
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:44 pm to Bigbens42
quote:
There’s a rule in the books the refs could possibly invoke to award the points. A “palpably unfair” act.
Kind of like when the Alabama player came off the bench and tackled the Rice player in the Rose Bowl because "he had too much Bama in him".
Posted on 1/5/26 at 10:49 pm to AUFANATL
quote:
Kind of like when the Alabama player came off the bench and tackled the Rice player in the Rose Bowl because "he had too much Bama in him".
The “palpably unfair” rule was utilized in that situation. Probably the most famous example.
Posted on 1/5/26 at 11:37 pm to Bigbens42
Go Cats Go
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:14 am to AUFANATL
quote:
Kind of like when the Alabama player came off the bench and tackled the Rice player in the Rose Bowl because "he had too much Bama in him"
Wow 1954 ?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:27 am to Crimson1st
That's a very interesting and real scenario which can easily come up every year, extra points get blocked, two point conversions get intercepted, etc
The only viable solution around it is if the refs determine the penalty is what actually stopped the defensive return from scoring then then can award the score anyway. Very subjective but the refs have liberty to do this.
The only viable solution around it is if the refs determine the penalty is what actually stopped the defensive return from scoring then then can award the score anyway. Very subjective but the refs have liberty to do this.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 5:56 am to Crimson1st
Honestly, does the kid have any eligibility left? That was brilliant.
It’s a post possession foul. You can’t definitely determine they would have scored so you can’t give them points, and the way OT works it’s single possession.
It’s a post possession foul. You can’t definitely determine they would have scored so you can’t give them points, and the way OT works it’s single possession.
Posted on 1/6/26 at 7:28 am to Crimson1st
Well, Montana state could’ve backed them up 15 yards and tried to block it again. It’s the same on any play where a team is stopped. Do you give them another chance or take the ball?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:15 am to Crimson1st
People get caught up in “we want the ball back to win” vrs. playing by the rules…esp. in close games at the end.
Also, how would it impact their next game…which will be next season?
Also, how would it impact their next game…which will be next season?
Posted on 1/6/26 at 8:18 am to Crimson1st
Also, in bb, you see obvious fouls made at the end.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News