How would it work in the OT

[hpo5rules]

Just curious about the rules:

Say the blocked extra point in OT is returned all the way:

What happens next? Just curious about the rules interpretation?

[kmax]

2 points for MSU and then MSU goes on offense. Only real difference is the catch for TD would have won it without the need for kicking the XP.

[hpo5rules]

Agree! Thanks for the response!

[justafan]

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...

[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?

[AFCAT]

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.

[thefrank1]

If the officials had ruled the face mask as "excessive", the penalty would have us beginning our OT possession at the 12.5 yard line.

[RobertSebastianCat-81]

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.

[technoCat]

If the officials had ruled the face mask as "excessive", the penalty would have us beginning our OT possession at the 12.5 yard line.

This is what I thought. It wasn't an "oopsie" accidental grab. He grabbed it, jerked and then through him down by it.

[SonomaCat]

If the officials had ruled the face mask as "excessive", the penalty would have us beginning our OT possession at the 12.5 yard line.

This is what I thought. It wasn't an "oopsie" accidental grab. He grabbed it, jerked and then through him down by it.

If that's truly the rule (I was completely confused, but that explanation makes sense), the refs blew that call -- definitely very excessive.

[thisnamesucks]

If the officials had ruled the face mask as "excessive", the penalty would have us beginning our OT possession at the 12.5 yard line.

I thought Vigen said it was automatically declined and even he didn’t know the rule. I think the only way yards could’ve been added to our offensive try is if it was after the play and not during.

[thefrank1]

Please see the ncaa rules. If it is deemed excessive by the officials, the yardage is assessed on the next play following a PAT attempt.

[thisnamesucks]

Please see the ncaa rules. If it is deemed excessive by the officials, the yardage is assessed on the next play following a PAT attempt.

Got a good link for the rules? I can’t seem to find one

[thefrank1]

Sorry, I don't. Another poster posted the wording in another thread but I can't locate it.

[thisnamesucks]

Sorry, I don't. Another poster posted the wording in another thread but I can't locate it.

No worries, Chat GPT agrees in essence but the way it reads the facemask regardless of severity should’ve been enforced on our possession so was just wanting some clarity

[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.

[ZebraCat]

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.

[coloradocat]

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)?

[ZebraCat]

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)?

Nowhere near close enough. I'd be surprised if the thought even entered their mind, especially coming from the kicker/holder. Judging intent is incredibly difficult. The only discussion they had was, "do we add that on MSU's possession or is it declined by rule?"

[MSU01]

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 can't recall ever seeing a player ejected from the game for a face mask penalty, so I don't think it was particularly close to the line whatsoever. Watching the replay I don't see anything really violent about the tackle, he just did what he had to do to get the player down.