detlef Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 OK, Vols fan here. I'm a bit puzzled by how the two penalties in OT vs Kentucky were enforced. When the Vols blocked UK's FG attempt in the 2nd OT and were trying to run it back, UK committed a flagrant face mask to bring the guy down. Two flags immediately came flying. The official was poorly mic'ed but it sounded like penalties do not carry over to the next round of OT. Then, when UT's Foster threw the ball in frustration after being stopped on the 2pt try at the end of the 3rd OT, they explained that the unsportsmanlike conduct would be enforced in the next. Of course, the Vols rose to the occasion and scored from 40 yards out and converted the deuce for good measure. Nobody in the booth bothered to mention the apparent discrepancy in enforcement. Does anyone have any insight here? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SEC=UGA Posted November 26, 2007 Share Posted November 26, 2007 The facemask was a personal foul that occurred during the play and thus would not carry over to the next OT. The unsportsman like occurred after the play was over and the 3rd OT had ended. Essentially, since the third OT had ended when he went out of bounds, the fourth OT had started, thus allowing the penalty to "carry over". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 26, 2007 Author Share Posted November 26, 2007 The facemask was a personal foul that occurred during the play and thus would not carry over to the next OT. The unsportsman like occurred after the play was over and the 3rd OT had ended. Essentially, since the third OT had ended when he went out of bounds, the fourth OT had started, thus allowing the penalty to "carry over". That is the only logical reason, but it sort of sucks. Who's to say that the UT player doesn't run the ball back all the way were it not for the facemask? So, faced with the situation again, the offender has nothing to lose by breaking the rules. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GWPFFL BrianW Posted November 27, 2007 Share Posted November 27, 2007 That is the only logical reason, but it sort of sucks. Who's to say that the UT player doesn't run the ball back all the way were it not for the facemask? So, faced with the situation again, the offender has nothing to lose by breaking the rules. I agree, Tennessee shoulda started at the 5 yard line after that blatant facemask. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 27, 2007 Author Share Posted November 27, 2007 I agree, Tennessee shoulda started at the 5 yard line after that blatant facemask. It was pretty bad. I just watched the highlights again on Youtube and, to be honest, I've seen few worse. It happens at the 5:30 mark on the video Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Seattle LawDawg Posted November 28, 2007 Share Posted November 28, 2007 This is a pretty interesting ruling as well Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
detlef Posted November 29, 2007 Author Share Posted November 29, 2007 This is a pretty interesting ruling as well Wow, is that real? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.