CHAPEL HILL, N.C. – The final moments of North Carolina’s season-opening loss to California have prompted a new rules interpretation for NCAA officials in handling blatant intentional fouls designed to gain a clock advantage in late-game situations.

With 17 seconds to play and UNC trailing by 11 points but in the red zone, California defensive backs intentionally held Tar Heels receivers to prevent a score while running out the clock. The strategy worked. After back-to-back holding calls, UNC was left with six seconds, one timeout and little time to score a touchdown and execute an onside kick for a last-second Hail Mary play.

On Sept. 7, the NCAA addressed what it describes as “unfair acts” in its first interpretations bulletin of 2017.

The section reads: “Rule 9-2-3 gives our Referee much latitude in handling obviously unfair acts during a game. This would include situations that arise when a team commits a blatant and obvious intentional foul or fouls to gain a clock advantage late in a game. As cited in The Football Code, such actions are in direct conflict with the strong statements under Coaching Ethics. As a new interpretation, we should treat these intentional fouls as Unsportsmanlike Conduct fouls and subsequently reset the game clock in these type situations back to the time at the snap on the play in question.”

The new interpretation does not constitute a rule change, Steve Shaw, the NCAA’s coordinator of college football officials, said in an interview on Thursday.

“The rules handled it, but it was a lot of latitude and we just wanted to give the referees the guidance on it,” Shaw said.

UNC head coach Larry Fedora, who is one of 12 coaches on the NCAA Football Rules Committee, expressed his opinions on the matter on his radio show last week.

“It’s within the rules, so I’m not going to say that it’s poor sportsmanship,” the sixth-year UNC head coach said. “It’s within the rules. The rules, if we don’t like it, we need to change the rules. But it is within the rules, they’re getting a penalty, they’re accepting the penalty, but you’re able to take advantage of that situation.

“I think you’re going to see a little bit more of that, because there was a big discussion in college football amongst coaches after last year’s national championship game between Alabama and Clemson… There was a lot of talk of if Alabama had just tackled those receivers, either the clock would have run out and then they would have had to kick a field goal. There was a lot of talk about that, so a lot of teams are going to utilize that strategy in those types of situations. And so I think you’ll see more of that as the year goes on across the country. I think the officials are going to have to make a decision as to what they’re going to do.”

Reached on Thursday, Fedora said he did not push for a new interpretation of the rule, but noted he had marked the plays in question as a talking point for the NCAA winter meetings early next year.

After receiving input from conference officiating coordinators, head coaches and the rules committee, the NCAA made the decision to address the situation before it potentially became a widespread issue.

“There have been these discussions around intentionally fouling to do this or do that, and I think that’s kind of against the football code,” Shaw said. “There’s always going to be situations, but we wanted to address a situation where a team commits a blatant obvious intentional foul or fouls late in the game or late in a half to gain a clock advantage. The concern is that that type thought is growing in the coaching community and we really don’t think that’s a great look for the game.”