What is the rule for a player coming off the bench to make a tackle?

It's a touchdown pretty obvious and logical and every time this has come up it's been said pretty clearly

I wanna say if he's in the clear and only tackled because someone came off the bench, it's a TD

ah there is it

In the 1954 Cotton Bowl a Rice player was going to score when Alabama's Tommy Lewis ran from the sideline and tackled him. They awarded Rice the TD despite the guy being tackled at the 1.

too much bama in him

Around the 40? I've been scooped. Always thought it was the 1. Well played

probably

quote:

---

Dude was going to get tackled around the 25. One of the Bama players had a great angle on him.

---

Bama fan claiming a mythical tackle

quote:

---

Rule 12. Section 4. Article 3: Palpably Unfair Act. A player or substitute shall not interfere with play by any act which is palpably unfair.

Penalty: For a palpably unfair act: Offender may be disqualified. The Referee, after consulting his crew, enforces any such distance penalty as they consider equitable and irrespective of any other specified code penalty. The Referee may award a score.

---

Can the above be applied to this play, if only in theory?

quote:

---

4-7-BAL 8 (:12) (Punt formation) S.Koch right end ran ob in End Zone for -8 yards, SAFETY (C.Culliver).

BALTIMORE 34, SAN FRANCISCO 31

---

During this play, during which Baltimore was to take a safety, every Baltimore player besides the punter committed a blatant holding penalty to extend the time of the play. Since the penalty for holding in this case would be either half the distance to the goal and a replay of 4th down (San Francisco would have declined, of course) or a safety, in the case that one of the offenses was committed in the end zone. It was one of the rarest of cases where a team actually committed 10 penalties on the same play...and they benefitted from it.

So, two-part question:
a) Can this be interpreted as "palpably unfair" as stated by the rule above?
b) If yes (or if no, but you care to hypothesize), what could the referee possibly do to remedy the situation within the parameters of the rules?

There are three things the referee is permitted to do, according to this rule:
1) Disqualify offending players. Virtually irrelevant in this case since the game was almost over and the offenders were on Baltimore's punt team and were in all likelihood finished playing in this game anyway.
2) Award a score. Since San Francisco actually did score two points on the play, not much that can be done here. The only other thing possible for San Francisco to have scored on that play was a touchdown in the event that the punter fumbled in the end zone and SF recovered it. Awarding a score doesn't really make sense here and would seem incredibly wrong.
3) Enforce any such distance penalty as he considers equitable and irrespective of any other specified code penalty. This basically means the referee can place the ball anywhere on the field that he finds to be equitable to the perceived palpable unfairness.

So let's go with #3 and just pretend. If you're the referee, what can you possibly do if you see this play as palpably unfair and can only enforce this rule by distance? Baltimore has been called for holding, and the penalty has been declined, and the result of the play is a safety. As it stands, Baltimore has a free kick at the 20. All I see that is even conceivable here is to place the free kick back further than the 20.