OK State v CM

[copedaddy]

Should the game had ended on the last play without the extension of the period?
What the "experts" say...
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/central-michigan-beats-oklahoma-state-thanks-to-hail-mary-on-misapplied-untimed-down-200741714.html

[ncwingman]

If anybody missed the play itself, the last timed down and the untimed down is here

[Joe Stack]

No. The rule as stated says the game ended on the final OkSU play. However, the rule needs to be changed as a team with a 4th down can do this or something similar and get away with it. The crew missed it (and that will cost them dearly) but what actually happened SHOULD be allowed in my opinion with a rules change.

Great play by CMU!

[Clear Lake ref]

Really surprised they didn't have the QB just run backwards and slide at 0:00 or run out of end zone.

[mishatx]

No. The rule as stated says the game ended on the final OkSU play. However, the rule needs to be changed as a team with a 4th down can do this or something similar and get away with it. The crew missed it (and that will cost them dearly) but what actually happened SHOULD be allowed in my opinion with a rules change.

Great play by CMU!

If they had held the rushers instead, and holding was called, they would have committed a foul to buy the last few seconds they needed to run out the clock on 4th down, and the game would have ended anyway.  I don't think there's a problem with the rule here.  The current rule prevents all the shenanigans possible with intentionally fouling to extend the game. 

If anything, we don't need to call this grounding.  He wasn't under pressure, really. He wasn't trying to conserve time.  There are better ways to waste two seconds but  chunking the ball downfield isn't that bad.

[BrendanP]

Admittedly, I didn't know this was the rule and had to look it up. But I think it serves as a stark reminder of the importance of rules study, as we never know which seemingly minuscule sentence in the rulebook could change the outcome of the game. Now I doubt the MAC/Big 12 is going to do anything about this, but for me at least, it made me a bit more humble knowing that whether this was at my level of officiating or if I'd been on that field in Oklahoma, that could have happened to me.

[mishatx]

If you think the rule is broken, it could be fixed by changing the wording to
The period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the
statement of the penalty includes loss of down and if that team, after enforcement, would next snap the ball.

This would also "correct" the situation in Rom's Quiz 1 Play 1 (http://www.romgilbert.us/quiz16.htm), which is a much more egregious and unfair situation of committing a foul to cause the game to end.

[Joe Stack]

The current rule prevents all the shenanigans possible with intentionally fouling to extend the game.

I don't think it prevents anything, and today is an example. Now, I don't think OkSU was trying to intentionally foul, but that's what they did. If they throw an illegal forward pass or illegally kick the ball (like your play example), its the same thing -- they fouled and they benefit by the down not having to be replayed.

I do agree with you that the play that occurred really shouldn't be a foul because he wasn't really trying to conserve time or yardage, but it could be argued that the intent of the rule is still to prevent what he was trying to do. Plus, your wording suggestion is pretty much what I had in mind.

[Clear Lake ref]

Valid point. Grounding requires conservation of time or yardage, neither of which applies. So really you have a bad judgement call with an incorrect enforcement.

[JasonTX]

I don't think it prevents anything, and today is an example. Now, I don't think OkSU was trying to intentionally foul, but that's what they did. If they throw an illegal forward pass or illegally kick the ball (like your play example), its the same thing -- they fouled and they benefit by the down not having to be replayed.

I do agree with you that the play that occurred really shouldn't be a foul because he wasn't really trying to conserve time or yardage, but it could be argued that the intent of the rule is still to prevent what he was trying to do. Plus, your wording suggestion is pretty much what I had in mind.

Suppose team A has 3rd and goal at the 9.  The runner takes off running and time expires in the game.  Needing a TD to win the game, he runs to the 5 yard line and realizes he will not be able to score so he throws an illegal forward pass to an open teammate in the end zone who catches it.  Are you suggesting they should be able to get an untimed down to attempt to score legally on 4th down after the penalty?  The rule seems fair to prevent such a thing.  That's what it was intended to do.

[Bwest]

If you think the rule is broken, it could be fixed by changing the wording to
The period is not extended if the foul is by the team in possession and the
statement of the penalty includes loss of down and if that team, after enforcement, would next snap the ball.

This would also "correct" the situation in Rom's Quiz 1 Play 1 (http://www.romgilbert.us/quiz16.htm), which is a much more egregious and unfair situation of committing a foul to cause the game to end.

Rom's answer is not correct. The period would be extended, as there is no LOD in the statement of the penalty for a scrimmage kick illegally kicked beyond the neutral zone. See 9-4-4.

The rule is fine.

[Kalle]

Rom's answer is not correct. The period would be extended, as there is no LOD in the statement of the penalty for a scrimmage kick illegally kicked beyond the neutral zone. See 9-4-4.

The rule is fine.

This is what I argued with him, but it seems that RR wants it ruled as no extension, ie. the exception language is ignored. This would be consistent with illegal forward passes by team B after a COP ("also loss of down if by Team A before team possession changes during a scrimmage down") resulting in an apparent touchdown.

[Bwest]

This is what I argued with him, but it seems that RR wants it ruled as no extension, ie. the exception language is ignored. This would be consistent with illegal forward passes by team B after a COP ("also loss of down if by Team A before team possession changes during a scrimmage down") resulting in an apparent touchdown.

So let's say we have this:

Tie game, 4/10 @ 50 with 10 seconds remaining in the game. A punts, and the ball is muffed by B86 at the B10. In an attempt to keep B from recovering the ball, A6 kicks the ball into the endzone where it is recovered by A5. a) There is 1 second left on the clock. b) Time expires during the play.

In a, we have A's ball 4/20 @ A40, clock on the snap. We replay the down. In b, we are saying that we are replaying the down (as that is the only way to take the TD off the board), but not extending the period? This is IMO a pretty poor interpretation of a very clearly written rule, which RR could easily edit if he wanted it called the way Rom describes.

[mishatx]

Giving team A an untimed down in that case would be a nightmare.  They will kneel the ball. Team B will do the only thing they can - crash the center-qb exchange and try to force a fumble that then is knocked free enough from the players that it can be scooped and advanced.  A would be wise to take the snap while on a knee.  The potential for fights and injuries is high, the potential for a meaningful play is practically zero.

[Bwest]

Giving team A an untimed down in that case would be a nightmare.  They will kneel the ball. Team B will do the only thing they can - crash the center-qb exchange and try to force a fumble that then is knocked free enough from the players that it can be scooped and advanced.  A would be wise to take the snap while on a knee.  The potential for fights and injuries is high, the potential for a meaningful play is practically zero.

In a tie game, I imagine A would probably try to score.

[mishatx]

In that case, you're rewarding team A for fouling by giving them the ball back and extending the period.

[Bwest]

In that case, you're rewarding team A for fouling by giving them the ball back and extending the period.

No different then if you have a hold during a game-winning TD...

[Kalle]

Rom has a simple solution: change the rule so that the offended team has an option whether or not the period is extended. This takes care of all possible situations and is equitable and consistent with the ZAP-10 option.

[BrendanP]

MAC has announced that the entire 8-man crew, plus the replay officials have been suspended for two games over this. I just don't see why the MAC/Big 12 or even the NCAA can't or shouldn't be able retroactively erase the score because of this mishap. Doesn't this rise to the level of egregiousness (Is that even a word?) to where the conference should have a way to remedy the situation after the fact? Now that leads to the argument that because, let's say, a penalty was missed that they should be able to change the score. I think we can all agree though that there's a big difference between missing a block in the back and being given an untimed down in clear contradiction with the rules.

Quite frankly I don't see what good suspending them does if you can't go back and correct the mistake, other than good PR.

[Rulesman]

When the Referee declares the game over, it's over (3-2-1a). NOBODY is going to be successful in getting the outcome changed. Part of the blame can also be placed on Oklahoma State for not knowing the rule. CMU might not have known it either, but they going to argue the point? Not in a million years.

I suspect there are potentially more than 2 games involved for the crew and the RO. For starters, their chances at a post-season assignment are reduced to zero. Not knowing the MAC's game fee, the wallets will likely take a pretty good hit because of their error.

[blindref757]

MAC has announced that the entire 8-man crew, plus the replay officials have been suspended for two games over this. I just don't see why the MAC/Big 12 or even the NCAA can't or shouldn't be able retroactively erase the score because of this mishap. Doesn't this rise to the level of egregiousness (Is that even a word?) to where the conference should have a way to remedy the situation after the fact? Now that leads to the argument that because, let's say, a penalty was missed that they should be able to change the score. I think we can all agree though that there's a big difference between missing a block in the back and being given an untimed down in clear contradiction with the rules.

Quite frankly I don't see what good suspending them does if you can't go back and correct the mistake, other than good PR.

Remember when Colorado got a 5th down?  The conference didn't fix that. 

I think we all have a long future ahead of us after our on-field days are over.  We will all be asked to serve on panels that review film and retroactively change the outcome of games in question in games from pee-wee to the NFL.  The robo refs are coming!!!

[bama_stripes]

Part of the blame can also be placed on Oklahoma State for not knowing the rule. CMU might not have known it either, but they going to argue the point? Not in a million years.

I've said this a jillion times:  If I'm making $3.5 million coaching football, somebody on my staff is going to be responsible for knowing the rules forward, backward & sideways.

[ALStripes17]

I've said this a jillion times:  If I'm making $3.5 million coaching football, somebody on my staff is going to be responsible for knowing the rules forward, backward & sideways.

Amen

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[yarnnelg]

I drove up to Pensacola a few years ago for a field clinic. There was a retired official attending the clinic, being curious I asked why. He had been hired by a local High School to use his Officiating and rules knowledge on the sidelines during games.

[BrendanP]

I've said this a jillion times:  If I'm making $3.5 million coaching football, somebody on my staff is going to be responsible for knowing the rules forward, backward & sideways.

No, you can't blame this on them. We're the referees, we're the ones responsible for knowing the minuscule rules like this one. I'm pretty sure that almost nobody knew that rule before yesterday afternoon.