RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: sczeebra on January 02, 2016, 10:07:35 PM
-
7:14 in the 2nd Clemson's ball 3rd and 3 at Oklahoma's 12. According to ESPN's drive chart, the record gives Oaklahoma a sack at the 19yrd line which is where the pass that was ruled to be illegal was tossed from (intentional grounding). The next play on 4th (LOD), the ball is snapped from the 19yd line. What happened to the yardage portion of the penalty?
-
The penalty for ING is LOD at the spot of the foul. If thrown from the 19 the next snap should be from the 19.
-
The penalty for ING is LOD at the spot of the foul. If thrown from the 19 the next snap should be from the 19.
To be pedantic: this is true if the illegal forward pass is thrown to conserve (only) yardage. If it is thrown to conserve time, the five yard penalty is added, as is for other illegal forward passes.
-
Kale, you sure about that?
-
Kale, you sure about that?
How the hell have I completely missed this rule change last year... thanks for pointing it out.
-
How the HECK have I completely missed this rule change last year... thanks for pointing it out.
Wow.... I've got to admit I missed that change, too...
-
https://www.facebook.com/WaGridironOfficialsAssociation/videos/521936821308424/
-
How the HECK have I completely missed this rule change last year... thanks for pointing it out.
It was just an editorial change. ;)
-
It was just an editorial change. ;)
Well, it was listed as an important editorial change, so still no excuse.
-
If that's an editorial change, I'm the Fairy Tinkerbell.
-
How the HECK have I completely missed this rule change last year... thanks for pointing it out.
I like the change because I have no idea if the IFP was to conserve time. I always determine it was to conserve yardage and can't think of an example of the other... nor would I be able to recognize it in a game.
-
If that's an editorial change, I'm the Fairy Tinkerbell.
Rule change = committee change
Editorial change = Rogers Redding change
That came directly from him. The committee gives him leeway to make changes.
-
If that's an editorial change, I'm the Fairy Tinkerbell.
Welcome to the wonderful world of NCAA rules...
-
I like the change because I have no idea if the IFP was to conserve time. I always determine it was to conserve yardage and can't think of an example of the other... nor would I be able to recognize it in a game.
It's a good change, as it makes the rules simpler. The only use of the old difference was as a trick rules question.
-
Rule change = committee change
Editorial change = Rogers Redding change
RR at least lists the important ones, unlike JA did.