I understand the frustration from Fenwick fans and was completely shocked when I read what happened after there was such a big deal made out of the Oklahoma St game earlier this year where literally the exact same scenario occurred. I also understand full well the frustrations with the IHSA as an organization. So don't take what I am about to ask the wrong way - I totally understand the rule as it is written and that the fact of the matter is that the rule was enforced incorrectly per the rulebook, and that is a very unfortunate mistake.
My question as a football fan is - is this even a good rule? I had the same exact thought after the Oklahoma St game. I kind of don't like the rule as a football fan. After talking through the scenarios with some other football fan friends, here is my understanding of the rule:
- The game CAN end on a loss of down penalty by the offense
- The reasons for this are because if a team on defense were to be winning, and an offense were to score while committing a penalty like an illegal touch or forward pass, then the defense would be forced to accept the penalty and give the offense another underserved chance or decline the penalty and lose the game.
So the intention of the rule is good. However, if the offense is winning, it really changes things. This rule now allows the offense to commit a penalty to guarantee itself a victory. The offense is essentially allowed to do something outside of the agreed upon rules of football in order to help itself win. That is what I don't like about the rule as a fan. Run out the clock by running around, take a safety, have a receiver in the vicinity of the throw, etc. - anything within the rules. But an intentional breaking of the rules should not be something you can do to help yourself win the game. The other team should not have to lose because you committed a penalty that helps you. I think the rule should be amended to reflect the score because if the offense is winning it changes the intention of the rule.
I might be completely missing a scenario here, and I am completely open to being enlightened on what I'm incorrectly interpreting. I just find it fascinating that this has happened twice this year (on two different levels of football) and think a rule change would make sense. Again, I'm asking this question outside the confines of the mistaken enforcement of the rule (as it is currently written) yesterday and whether or not a team should be awarded a victory after-the-fact.