Ball State vs. Western Michigan ending

[Bobref]

OK would-be officials. The play was ultimately called back. But let’s suppose that flag didn’t get thrown. How would you handle this?
 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiaw8nS68rtAhUDxVkKHZg-D2kQtwIwAXoECAMQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxLIBgfoZ-fQ&usg=AOvVaw3vq-vZuGpiKeoDjl1yOgZI

[Irishman]

7 hours ago, Bobref said:

OK would-be officials. The play was ultimately called back. But let’s suppose that flag didn’t get thrown. How would you handle this?
 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=&ved=2ahUKEwiaw8nS68rtAhUDxVkKHZg-D2kQtwIwAXoECAMQAg&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DxLIBgfoZ-fQ&usg=AOvVaw3vq-vZuGpiKeoDjl1yOgZI

If the play is alive through the entire length of that clip, I am guessing Ball State got a penalty for players leaving the sideline. HOWEVER....prior to that, at about the 20 second point of the clip, number 24 throws the ball across the field. That was a forward pass, and the second one on that play. There is a flag that is thrown shortly after that. Based on your post in another topic, apparently the game ended there. So something I am missing was called, or there were no offsetting penalties. 

 

Edit: I missed this earlier, and just saw it.....Number 3 was hit while he had the ball, and his helmet came off. That means the play is dead; correct? 

[miner_35]

These officials definitely nailed this one. I believe the rule in high school is different for players coming on the field as we could get them for illegal participation or unsportsmanlike conduct, officials discretion. If we go with unsportsmanlike conduct, it is administered as a dead ball foul, thus ending the game even if Western Michigan is stopped short. If we have illegal participation, there would be one un-timed down if they were stopped short of the endzone. Of course, the illegal forward pass negates any of that because even with illegal participation, they offset. This again, would end the game.

Of course, I could be wrong. I am a licensed official and am obviously usually wrong. 😜

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, miner_35 said:

If we have illegal participation, there would be one un-timed down if they were stopped short of the endzone. Of course, the illegal forward pass negates any of that because even with illegal participation, they offset. This again, would end the game.

Going to have to take exception to this, at least under NF rules. For this to be illegal participation, the people crossing the sideline would have to touch the ball, hinder an opponent, or “otherwise participate.” I didn’t see this. It fits much more closely with 9-8-1,“Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player.” That makes it unsportsmanlike conduct. It makes a big difference because if the foul on BSU is unsportsmanlike, the live ball foul for illegal forward pass against WMU is enforced and, because its penalty includes loss of down, the period is not extended, the score is canceled, and the game is over.

On the other hand, if you call it illegal participation, it combines with the WMU foul to create a double foul. By rule, a double foul during a down in which time expires requires that the period be extended by an untimed down. 3-3-3b. The down would be replayed at the previous spot.

[DE]

ok.....so without looking all over, what was the ruling and who won?

[Bobref]

1 hour ago, DE said:

ok.....so without looking all over, what was the ruling and who won?

The ultimate ruling was that there was an illegal forward pass and, after that, there was a fumble recovered by a prone player, so the play was over at that point. Rendered everything sort of moot. No TD. BSU wins.

[DE]

4 minutes ago, Bobref said:

The ultimate ruling was that there was an illegal forward pass and, after that, there was a fumble recovered by a prone player, so the play was over at that point. Rendered everything sort of moot. No TD. BSU wins.

I've never heard this phrase before.  The google machine gave me some things, but don't think it is what I was looking for.....

[Bobref]

39 minutes ago, DE said:

I've never heard this phrase before.  The google machine gave me some things, but don't think it is what I was looking for.....

The player was lying face down on the turf when he reached out and possessed the loose ball. It became dead at that point.

[DE]

1 minute ago, Bobref said:

The player was lying face down on the turf when he reached out and possessed the loose ball. It became dead at that point.

Well then it was correct, somewhat.

[miner_35]

5 hours ago, Bobref said:

Going to have to take exception to this, at least under NF rules. For this to be illegal participation, the people crossing the sideline would have to touch the ball, hinder an opponent, or “otherwise participate.” I didn’t see this. It fits much more closely with 9-8-1,“Being on the field except as a substitute or replaced player.” That makes it unsportsmanlike conduct. It makes a big difference because if the foul on BSU is unsportsmanlike, the live ball foul for illegal forward pass against WMU is enforced and, because its penalty includes loss of down, the period is not extended, the score is canceled, and the game is over.

On the other hand, if you call it illegal participation, it combines with the WMU foul to create a double foul. By rule, a double foul during a down in which time expires requires that the period be extended by an untimed down. 3-3-3b. The down would be replayed at the previous spot.

If you go back and look, #16 does go after the ball, with no helmet at that. That in itself is illegal participation.

Edited December 15, 2020 by miner_35
Correction in data

[miner_35]

5 minutes ago, miner_35 said:

If you go back and look, #16 does go after the ball, with no helmet at that. That in itself is illegal participation.

However, western Michigan had players come out on the field too. Didn't catch that the first time. Lots to decipher.

[Bobref]

57 minutes ago, miner_35 said:

However, western Michigan had players come out on the field too. Didn't catch that the first time. Lots to decipher.

You could have 50 unsportsmanlike penalties for people running onto the field. It wouldn’t matter. Once they ruled the fumble had been recovered by the prone player, everything that happened after that was irrelevant.

[miner_35]

1 hour ago, Bobref said:

You could have 50 unsportsmanlike penalties for people running onto the field. It wouldn’t matter. Once they ruled the fumble had been recovered by the prone player, everything that happened after that was irrelevant.

I would not have called that a recovery, but maybe that is just me.

[Bobref]

38 minutes ago, miner_35 said:

I would not have called that a recovery, but maybe that is just me.

The TV angle was less than optimal.

[Irishman]

On 12/15/2020 at 6:05 PM, Bobref said:

You could have 50 unsportsmanlike penalties for people running onto the field. It wouldn’t matter. Once they ruled the fumble had been recovered by the prone player, everything that happened after that was irrelevant.

I brought this up on the other topic about this....prior to the fumble, number 3 was hit while in possession, and his helmet came off as he fumbled. Could/would/should that also cause the play to be dead. 

[Bobref]

32 minutes ago, Irishman said:

I brought this up on the other topic about this....prior to the fumble, number 3 was hit while in possession, and his helmet came off as he fumbled. Could/would/should that also cause the play to be dead. 

Are you sure it’s #3? I just watched it, and the last shot of him in the video he is sitting on the turf with his helmet fully on. I watched him throughout the play and didn’t see his helmet come off.

[Irishman]

52 minutes ago, Bobref said:

Are you sure it’s #3? I just watched it, and the last shot of him in the video he is sitting on the turf with his helmet fully on. I watched him throughout the play and didn’t see his helmet come off.

Ok...maybe number 5......it occurs after the Ball State sideline comes on the field. 

[Bobref]

11 minutes ago, Irishman said:

Ok...maybe number 5......it occurs after the Ball State sideline comes on the field. 

I think he had gotten rid of the ball before his helmet came completely off.

[JustRules]

One thing I'll disagree with Bob on is whether we would consider this IP under HS rules. I definitely would. Having that many substitutes (definition of the people who came on during the play) on the field very much could influenced the play. At that point the officials have no idea who the original 11 players were for either team. Similar to BD/WC in 2019 when WC players ran on to the field after a blocked FG they thought ended the game. The crew ruled IP rather than IS because of this very reason (I agreed with their call). I would only go with IS if they came on the field but were nowhere near the play as it happened (say 5-10 yards on and stopped and ran back). I would have IP on both sides and along with the IFP offset and replay the down. The LOD aspect of the IFP doesn't matter at this point.

I had heard the ruling on the field was the IFP ended the play. They ruled UNS for the players being on the field but treated it similar to IS in HS (which is entirely in their judgement). Most college officials I've talked to thought it probably should have been treated as an egregious act and ruled it as a double foul and replay the down because they had so many players from both teams on the field. If I hear anything from any training videos I'll try to share it here. Neither call would be "wrong" but one may be more right than another and ultimately decided by the grader in this case. A good friend of mine told me once, some calls aren't right or wrong. They are just calls.