Lighthouse ?

[1daysoon]

Lighthouse,

In the 3rd OT of UK-UT game, after we score first we go for the 2 point conversion. UT intercepts, fumbles into our end zone and after a mad scramble, the ball goes out of bounds. According to my DVR, the ball grazes the pylon and both officials (who are less than 10 feet from the pylon) both indicate that it is a touchback which signifies that the ball did go out of bounds in the end zone by my understanding.

Question 1 - Would that indicate a 1 point safety for UK. Anytime a defensive unit fumbles the ball out of bounds in the end zone on a 2 point conversion, the offense is award 1 point.

Question 2 - I thought once the defense intercepts or recovers a fumbles in OT, the play is automatically dead and no run back is allowed. If that is true, I wonder why the officials didn't rule the ball dead.

Question 3 - If question #2 is accurate, what are the rules for a block field goal. Can it be ran back?

Question 1 is a big question because if they was true, UK should have been awarded 1 point during that play which would have given us the game as UT's 2 point conversion failed on their turn.

Your expert analysis is appreciated.

[lighthouse]

Evidently there has been much discussion about this play. The official ruling is this. The ball was intercepted and fumbled in the endzone, but actually went out of bounds on the 2 yard line. The officials erred in calling it a touchback. You are right for the most part, but if the ball had been fumbled out of bounds in the endzone, it would have been ruled a safety, and UK would have been awarded 2 points.

[PeachtreeCat]

Lighthouse,
I have another for you. In the 2nd OT, when our FG was blocked, UT picked up the ball and ran it back. We tackled the guy with a facemask call, but no penalty was assessed on our next possession. However, at the end of the 3rd OT, when UT was assessed an unsportsman penalty for throwing the football, it was assessed against them in the 4th OT. Was this action correct and why?

[lighthouse]

Lighthouse,
I have another for you. In the 2nd OT, when our FG was blocked, UT picked up the ball and ran it back. We tackled the guy with a facemask call, but no penalty was assessed on our next possession. However, at the end of the 3rd OT, when UT was assessed an unsportsman penalty for throwing the football, it was assessed against them in the 4th OT. Was this action correct and why?

Yes. Because our foul was a live ball foul, and the Tenn foul was a dead ball foul.

[1daysoon]

Yes. Because our foul was a live ball foul, and the Tenn foul was a dead ball foul.

Theoretically then, we could have sent out the whole team on the sideline to tackle the guy and would have been unpenalized since it would have been a "live" play.:icon_biggrin:

There has to be some kind of exception for that type of situation.

[PeachtreeCat]

Theoretically then, we could have sent out the whole team on the sideline to tackle the guy and would have been unpenalized since it would have been a "live" play.:icon_biggrin:

There has to be some kind of exception for that type of situation.
Thanks for the reply, Lighthouse! When the play happened, I was afraid that the call would be the rule of a game (or possibly an OT) not ending on a penalty, and that UT would get the 15 yards and one more chance to score.

[Gilster]

I believe that if the team would have run in from the sideline there would be unsportsmanlike penalties as well as ejections.