How would it work in the OT

[PapaG]

still can't believe you could kill someone by breaking their neck and nada comes of it...seems like there needs to be something enforced with something so blatantly dangerous...

Feels like I’m missing something here?

The penalty when Petre tried to return the blocked extra point. The ISU holder about tore Petre’s helmet off by the face mask in making the tackle. There was a flag thrown, but no yardage penalty because it was in overtime on an extra point.

Oh that. Thought that was a great penalty to take by their kicker with the rules and was surprised it wasn’t a half the distance when the Bobcats got the ball.

Yeah, that’s a pretty bad rule considering it would have been 2 points and the Bobcat XP wouldn’t have mattered

[onceacat]

I heard from someone sitting next to me that if we took the penalty, they would be moved back 5 yards (maybe 15) for a re-kick.

I don't think the person sitting next to you knew the rule.

They did not. And for those asking about the excessive portion, it would need to be considered so flagrant and unsporting so as to warrant ejection for that part of the rule to apply and it be marked off at the beginning of the try.

I haven't followed all the responses to this but where do you think the line is and how close to, or over, the line was it? It was definitely flagrant and unsporting but it was also more of a desperation move than an attempt to cause harm. It was really bad though so how close was it to making the refs actually think about it (they seemed very quick to move on)?

I don't know how you could ever get more excessive on a face mask than that particular play.

Maybe it wasn't 'excessive' because it was the kicker or the holder? Regardless, it was the worst facemask I've ever seen in football at any level.

[catatac]

I heard from someone sitting next to me that if we took the penalty, they would be moved back 5 yards (maybe 15) for a re-kick.

I don't think the person sitting next to you knew the rule.

They did not. And for those asking about the excessive portion, it would need to be considered so flagrant and unsporting so as to warrant ejection for that part of the rule to apply and it be marked off at the beginning of the try.

I assume you mean marked off at the Bobcat try? How many yards? So I've learned from the other posts on here, there probably isn't any level of a facemask that would trigger a penalty here, could grab the player's facemask with both hands and pull them to the ground without penalty, but if there was a more violent penalty such a a violent helmet to helmet, or a throat punch, etc... that would get a flag.

[HelenaCat95]

If that facemask is not excessive or flagrant I don't know what is. The tackler grabs his face mask and then because of his hold on the face mask turns Petre in a full 360 before taking him to the ground . Thank God it really didn't matter.....but it could've if not for an amazing play on 4th down .

Also, Thank God Petre wasn't hurt on that play.

Another rules question. .. . What if due to the face mask Petre dropped the ball, which is then recovered by ISU and taken in for a 2pt conversion. I assume that the penalty is not auto declined, mark off 15 yards, and rekick?

If what happenedis not flagrant, then the coaching point for the kicking team is to just facemask the hell out of the guy if it's blocked.

[catatac]

If that facemask is not excessive or flagrant I don't know what is. The tackler grabs his face mask and then because of his hold on the face mask turns Petre in a full 360 before taking him to the ground . Thank God it really didn't matter.....but it could've if not for an amazing play on 4th down .

Also, Thank God Petre wasn't hurt on that play.

Another rules question. .. . What if due to the face mask Petre dropped the ball, which is then recovered by ISU and taken in for a 2pt conversion. I assume that the penalty is not auto declined, mark off 15 yards, and rekick?

If what happenedis not flagrant, then the coaching point for the kicking team is to just facemask the hell out of the guy if it's blocked.

I think what they're saying is that it would have to be something so severe that it led to an ejection. So while yes, that was a blatant, really bad facemask, I've never seen a player at any level get kicked out of a game for that.

[HelenaCat95]

If that facemask is not excessive or flagrant I don't know what is. The tackler grabs his face mask and then because of his hold on the face mask turns Petre in a full 360 before taking him to the ground . Thank God it really didn't matter.....but it could've if not for an amazing play on 4th down .

Also, Thank God Petre wasn't hurt on that play.

Another rules question. .. . What if due to the face mask Petre dropped the ball, which is then recovered by ISU and taken in for a 2pt conversion. I assume that the penalty is not auto declined, mark off 15 yards, and rekick?

If what happenedis not flagrant, then the coaching point for the kicking team is to just facemask the hell out of the guy if it's blocked.

I think what they're saying is that it would have to be something so severe that it led to an ejection. So while yes, that was a blatant, really bad facemask, I've never seen a player at any level get kicked out of a game for that.

So the upshot is the coaching point I mentioned. On a blocked XP, the kicking team gets free shots (short of ejection) on the defense.
That's got to change.

[ZebraCat]

If that facemask is not excessive or flagrant I don't know what is. The tackler grabs his face mask and then because of his hold on the face mask turns Petre in a full 360 before taking him to the ground . Thank God it really didn't matter.....but it could've if not for an amazing play on 4th down .

Also, Thank God Petre wasn't hurt on that play.

Another rules question. .. . What if due to the face mask Petre dropped the ball, which is then recovered by ISU and taken in for a 2pt conversion. I assume that the penalty is not auto declined, mark off 15 yards, and rekick?

If what happenedis not flagrant, then the coaching point for the kicking team is to just facemask the hell out of the guy if it's blocked.

I think what they're saying is that it would have to be something so severe that it led to an ejection. So while yes, that was a blatant, really bad facemask, I've never seen a player at any level get kicked out of a game for that.

So the upshot is the coaching point I mentioned. On a blocked XP, the kicking team gets free shots (short of ejection) on the defense.
That's got to change.

It's been that way for years and years and years, why does it have to change because it happened to the Cats? Nobody gets free shots. It's not like he went and smashed Petre over the head with his own helmet. A kicker who probably hasn't tackled since middle school made his best effort to stop a guy from running the other way. Yes, it was a crazy hard face mask, but no it wasn't dirty and it wasn't meant to cause injury.

[HelenaCat95]

It shouldn't matter if it was a kid who's never tackled, or Ray Lewis. A facemask penalty should have a consequence.

I'm not saying that it should change because it happened to the Cats. Are you saying that there shouldn't be a consequence to a penalty because that's the way it's always been?

Also, as I understand the way the rules are written, and given the interpretation of the refs on the field, of course the right ruling was given. I do question the interpretation of excessive (go back and watch it). And I question the wisdom of having no onfield consequence for a personal foul.

Not trying to argue with you, but I do have a question for you as a ref. If this penalty had happened during regular time, would there have been yardage marked off on the subsequent kickoff?

[ZebraCat]

It shouldn't matter if it was a kid who's never tackled, or Ray Lewis. A facemask penalty should have a consequence.

I'm not saying that it should change because it happened to the Cats. Are you saying that there shouldn't be a consequence to a penalty because that's the way it's always been?

Also, as I understand the way the rules are written, and given the interpretation of the refs on the field, of course the right ruling was given. I do question the interpretation of excessive (go back and watch it). And I question the wisdom of having no onfield consequence for a personal foul.

Not trying to argue with you, but I do have a question for you as a ref. If this penalty had happened during regular time, would there have been yardage marked off on the subsequent kickoff?

I don't disagree it shouldn't matter, it's a very odd and poor rule. The key part of the rule is a palpable unfair, unsporting, or flagrant act. If the kicker had done a slide tackle like in soccer, the white hat could actually have awarded the Cats the 2 points. The key on this play is that possession has changed, and a penalty can't be enforced on a try from the succeeding spot unless it's a dead ball foul by either team, or a foul by the defense on a successfull try. The Cats OT possession is treated like a kickoff, therefore the penalty is declined by rule as possession would not be taken at the spot the foul occurred, or the end of the run +15 yards like it would have on a blocked FG.

[HelenaCat95]

It shouldn't matter if it was a kid who's never tackled, or Ray Lewis. A facemask penalty should have a consequence.

I'm not saying that it should change because it happened to the Cats. Are you saying that there shouldn't be a consequence to a penalty because that's the way it's always been?

Also, as I understand the way the rules are written, and given the interpretation of the refs on the field, of course the right ruling was given. I do question the interpretation of excessive (go back and watch it). And I question the wisdom of having no onfield consequence for a personal foul.

Not trying to argue with you, but I do have a question for you as a ref. If this penalty had happened during regular time, would there have been yardage marked off on the subsequent kickoff?

I don't disagree it shouldn't matter, it's a very odd and poor rule. The key part of the rule is a palpable unfair, unsporting, or flagrant act. If the kicker had done a slide tackle like in soccer, the white hat could actually have awarded the Cats the 2 points. The key on this play is that possession has changed, and a penalty can't be enforced on a try from the succeeding spot unless it's a dead ball foul by either team, or a foul by the defense on a successfull try. The Cats OT possession is treated like a kickoff, therefore the penalty is declined by rule as possession would not be taken at the spot the foul occurred, or the end of the run +15 yards like it would have on a blocked FG.

Thanks for the explanation of the rule. As you can tell, I think it needs to change.

[ClowderUp]

This was the same #41 that flopped around on the ground like a soccer player after a running into the kicker penalty. That guy is a big pussy.