OK State v CM

[NoVaBJ]

What do others think of this point?

I think if you don't call IG here, you aren't worth your stripes. He conserved yardage. Conservation of yardage with :00 left is still conservation of yardage.

[Rulesman]

Anyone see the H on this play come charging down the sideline and cut in front of the S on the goal line as they both signaled TD?  Looked like the S was a little bit perturbed...  H must not have seen the S as he came down the sideline because the S was a few yards back off of the pylon?  Otherwise I'm not sure why the H is charging down the sideline so hard on this play -- S has the goal line all the way on this...

Normally that is correct, but if for some reason S isn't there, 4 eyes is certainly better than no eyes. H likely couldn't find S and did what he needed to do. Get there to make a ruling. If I were S I'd buy H a beer for potentially saving his rear.

  to H.

[JasonTX]

If a team that's leading can violate the rules and end a closely contested game by intentionally committing a foul, then if at all possible we need to get that fixed.  We extend periods for a whole host of reasons related to fouls.

In this particular case the reason for the exception to the untimed down standard is to prevent A from gaining an advantage - but that's exactly what they get here by intentionally fouling since the loss of down language effectively penalizes team B.  This needs to be fixed and there's already been a simple fix recommended.  Why not fix it?

I believe the intent of the rule is to prevent Team A from getting a second shot at scoring by throwing an illegal pass. 

What would the "fix" be for these two plays?

Team A is down by 6 pts.  4th and 10 from the 50.  A10 takes the snap just before time expires in the 4th qtr.  A10 runs to his right and has a clear running lane.  He gets to the B-10 where he realizes he will not be able to score so he throws a pass to his teammate who catches the ball in the end zone.  Would you change anything with a rule change here or keep the rule as currently written?


Team A is down by 5 pts.  4th and Goal from the 10.  A10 takes the snap just before time expires in the 4th qtr.  A10 runs to his right and has a clear running lane.  He gets to the B-5 where he realizes he will not be able to score so he throws a pass to his teammate who catches the ball in the end zone.  Considering the proposed "fix" to extend the period, we penalize team A, 5 yards from the spot of the foul and loss of down, extend the period for team B.  Team B (now team A) snaps the ball but it is muffed.  The defense picks up the loose ball and runs it in for a TD to win the game.  Now the outcry is why did we extend the period.


I just think that we will never be able to get the rules to match every possible scenario that only happens once every 100 years so in my opinion it's not really broken.  Now if we get 2 or 3 more of these this year then it my be worth looking at.

[Clear Lake ref]

Decline the extension like the 10 second runoff. 

Period shall be extended for accepted penalty with loss of down if the offended team is next to put the ball in play. The extension may be declined.

[cperezprg]

Yes, just let the offended team decide if they want the period extended or not

[NVFOA_Ump]

Easy solution - as noted above, simply allow the offended team to decline the untimed down since it would be part of the penalty statement.

[bossman72]

If they were to change it, that would be the best idea!

[Fatman325]

Normally that is correct, but if for some reason S isn't there, 4 eyes is certainly better than no eyes. H likely couldn't find S and did what he needed to do. Get there to make a ruling. If I were S I'd buy H a beer for potentially saving his rear.

  to H.

? Where else would the SJ be? These are basic mechanics that anyone working 7-8 man mechanics should know. The SJ was positioned exactly where he needed to be and the HL should have never been where he ended up. The HL will likely get a downgrade for not using proper mechanics.

[goodgrr]

Anyone see the H on this play come charging down the sideline and cut in front of the S on the goal line as they both signaled TD?

My first thought, "this H is used to working on a 5 man crew", don't know if he's a seasoned guy but didn't look like it.

[Rulesman]

Not withstanding the crew screwing up the 4th down call, I can think of several reasons, including getting tripped up or screened by a sideline bystander who happens to be some place where they shouldn't be. Have you EVER seen a sideline stay completely clear at the end of a play like this?

S and H are focused on the action on the field. Having worked both positions, I would always take a glance and look for my partner on long runs. But it's a quick glance, at best, not a prolonged look. The goal line is the money line. If I can't find my partner in a situation where the game is on line, I'd much rather take the ding for that than be crucified for not having the goal line covered.   

[BlindZebra]

I think if you don't call IG here, you aren't worth your stripes. He conserved yardage. Conservation of yardage with :00 left is still conservation of yardage.

Then take my stripes as I would not have called it.  Think about game situation...

He is not trying to conserve time because he is ahead in the game.  What extra time does he need?  He is not trying to conserve yards because it is 4th down which, obviously, is his last down of the series.  It may be just me, but I don't think you can conserve yardage on 4th down and it be to the possessing teams advantage.

It was obvious the QBs intent here and it was not to ground the ball.  Now, do I agree that there were plenty of better options to run the clock out...yes.  Has to be better game management here.

[Clear Lake ref]

You can conserve yardage on 4th but not intent here.

OSU ran the "QB backward run" play in 11 against A&M at the end. Would have been smart play here.

[NVFOA_Ump]

You can conserve yardage on 4th but not intent here.

Why does that matter?  If the QB was tackled for a loss here (if he had the ball where he went down), there would have been 1-2 seconds on the clock and a loss of yardage.  By the rules he intentionally committed an IG to prevent being tackled for a loss, directly resulting in "saving" a loss in yardage.  IMHO that's a foul in my book 100% of the time.

There's all kinds of ways to burn clock LEGALLY, this was clearly not one of them.  He simply dropped straight back waited until just before contact and fired the ball downfield and OB on a play when no team A player even crossed the NZ.  At a minimum he needed to have someone in the same area code to not get my flag for this one.

[centexsports]

Ok  lets do the math:

Call this IG  (+1) MAYBE (just MAYBE) technically correct call
                  (-1)  Screw up the enforcement
                  (-1)  Stupid luck play to cause a wrong outcome
                  (-5)  Get suspended for 2 games
                  (-10) Ridiculed by every sports commentator and writer in America

Don't call IG - (+10) Game over
                     (+1) nobody and I mean nobody on TV would have questioned it
                     (+1) nobody including coaches would not question
                     (+1) not reviewed
                     (-.0001) questioned and ridiculed by umpires on Refstripes

[NVFOA_Ump]

Ok  lets do the math:

Maybe we are actually discussing how under the current rules we should/would handle a similar play, exceptions to the rules, and how the rules could be improved to allow us to do a better job? It's not our job or responsibility to be grading anyone.

[BrendanP]

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!!!

This was kind what I was thinking. While fifth down was a few years before I was born, it's one of only two scenarios I can think of including this one where there should be an exception to allow the NCAA to retroactively change the final score. It should have to rise to a level of shocking, unbelievable egregiousness for the NCAA/conference to merely consider changing the score, but I do believe that after this fiasco that it should be there as a nuclear option so to speak.

Now that said, if I was the one to write that into the rulebook, the above definition of "egregious" would be put in the strongest, most hyperbolic terms possible to ensure there is no misunderstanding. Don't bother calling the NCAA and saying "They missed a hold on the game-winning touchdown," this would only be possible in a shocking and painfully obvious misapplication of a rule (such as fifth down).

[ALStripes17]

This was kind what I was thinking. While fifth down was a few years before I was born, it's one of only two scenarios I can think of including this one where there should be an exception to allow the NCAA to retroactively change the final score. It should have to rise to a level of shocking, unbelievable egregiousness for the NCAA/conference to merely consider changing the score, but I do believe that after this fiasco that it should be there as a nuclear option so to speak.

Now that said, if I was the one to write that into the rulebook, the above definition of "egregious" would be put in the strongest, most hyperbolic terms possible to ensure there is no misunderstanding. Don't bother calling the NCAA and saying "They missed a hold on the game-winning touchdown," this would only be possible in a shocking and painfully obvious misapplication of a rule (such as fifth down).

Kinda makes it unfair to the offensive team in that situation who might (read: would) have called a different play on actual 4th down and still potentially scored. Big difference in play calls between 3rd and 4th down.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

[bama_stripes]

Kinda makes it unfair to the offensive team in that situation who might (read: would) have called a different play on actual 4th down and still potentially scored. Big difference in play calls between 3rd and 4th down.

Especially since Colorado "clocked" the ball on their 4th play.

However, there is still responsibility for the coaching staff to realize what the down is, and to ask for a correction if it's wrong on the box.

[DallasLJ]

RR issued an "explanation" of the Rule, instead of including it on the video revie