RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: copedaddy on September 10, 2016, 07:53:11 PM
-
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
-
If anybody missed the play itself, the last timed down and the untimed down is here (https://streamable.com/z8gs)
-
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!
-
Really surprised they didn't have the QB just run backwards and slide at 0:00 or run out of end zone.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
In that case, you're rewarding team A for fouling by giving them the ball back and extending the period.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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!!!
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
Rom Gilbert requested this change from very long ago, probably since it was rewritten.
http://romgilbert.us/p-1306.htm play#4
-
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.
Yes, the ultimate responsibility for knowing and enforcing the rules rest with the officials. However, officials are humans and they make mistakes. If you had a 7 figure salary that could end based on an officials rule mistake, why wouldn't you have someone who's only job was to make sure that didn't happen?
-
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.
if that's the case you might want to consider opening the book and learning the rules concerning penalty enforcement. I'm pretty sure 8 officials and a RO wish they had done that. Good coaches know the rules and NOBODY stepped up to save the crew on a rule that's not as obscure as you think.
-
...... NOBODY stepped up to save the crew on a rule that's not as obscure as you think.
Pretty hard to believe that everyone involved missed this. We have had discussions on this board (and other discussion boards), have reviewed Rom's mini missive multiple times here, and unanimously wondered if the rule allowing Team A to take an intentional penalty to end a period or game allowing them to accomplish their goal and working to their advantage will ever get revised. Not a good way to expose the "problem" to the masses, but it's out there now.
-
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.
Obviously, I'm not blaming OKSt for the original error. That's strictly on the crew (and replay), and it's why the crew (and replay) will be sitting at home the next two weeks.
I'm not sure what you mean by "miniscule" rule. The rule about extending a period (or not) isn't hard to understand. It's basically: "The period ends when the ball becomes dead after time expires, unless there's an accepted penalty which does not carry a LOD provision."
-
Hard to believe that this is the only time since 2010 when the rule change added the "The period is not extended if the statement of the penalty includes loss of down" language that this has been a "problem".
-
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.
Why?
The purpose of the penalty is to give the defense a sack and spotting the ball at the spot where the QB threw the pass instead of the QB throwing it incomplete and having no loss of yardage. If we applied that theory and gave a sack at the spot of the pass, the game is over in that scenario too. The rule is fine.
-
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.
He was knocked down at the end of the play. Either he was under duress, or there was a late hit that the R passed on. I think its easier to say he was under duress.
There are MANY better ways to waste :04 seconds...this play started on the Team B 46 with OSU having a 3 point lead..the QB could have just run backwards all the way out of his own end zone to the locker room and ended the game with a safety. Not excusing the errors made by the crew, but this was poor coaching and execution by OSU.
-
minuscule rules like this one. I'm pretty sure that almost nobody knew that rule before yesterday afternoon.
I'm not sure why you say this. There are thousands and thousands of NCAA-rules officials (including Texas and Mass. HS officials) that know this rule. It is certainly not minuscule and not something that "almost nobody knew."
-
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.
Unsure if NCAA has a clause like NFHS (7-5-2c) : "A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver." If they do, that part was a good call.
-
Unsure if NCAA has a clause like NFHS (7-5-2c) : "A pass intentionally thrown into an area not occupied by an eligible offensive receiver." If they do, that part was a good call.
Nope, NCAA doesn't have that.
"The passer to conserve time throws the ball forward into an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver (A.R. 7-3-2-II-VII)."
"The passer to conserve yardage throws the ball forward into an area where there is no eligible Team A receiver (A.R. 7-3-2-I)."
-
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.
What do others think of this point?
As far as I know, Bill Carollo and Rogers Redding have not disagreed with the foul call in the first place. But the letter of the rule requires an intent to conserve either yardage or time. This passer had no interest in conserving yardage and was trying to do the opposite of conserving time.
So if this happens with 0:01 left, shall I assume that supervisors do want this called?
-
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?
Though it wasn't the comment you replied to, my original comment on this was, "but what actually happened SHOULD be allowed in my opinion with a rules change." Meaning IF there's a possible change of possession involved on the play, there should be a clause making what happens on 4th down meaningful. Your scenario here seems to suggest I'm advocating getting rid of the current rule exception on LOD penalties and I am not. I'm advocating changing the exception to allow what happened in the game to be legal.
-
What do others think of this point?
As far as I know, Bill Carollo and Rogers Redding have not disagreed with the foul call in the first place. But the letter of the rule requires an intent to conserve either yardage or time. This passer had no interest in conserving yardage and was trying to do the opposite of conserving time.
So if this happens with 0:01 left, shall I assume that supervisors do want this called?
I believe that the passer held the ball to the last second, was absolutely under duress and did in fact release the ball to prevent a tackle (and loss in yardage) just before he was contacted by the defense. Yes, the loss in yardage was secondary to his primary intention of simply throwing the ball away, but the result is he did in fact throw it away to prevent being tackled for a loss and having the clock stop at that instant. The clock showed zero while the ball was crossing the OB line well after he could have been tackled for a loss (which would have stopped the clock). No question that this case has exposed a "flaw" in the rules that we have discussed on and off since 2010. Rom's mini-missives in 2013 did an excellent job of highlighting the potential "problem".
Lots of ways he could have killed the clock legally, IMHO this wasn't one of them. Also, IMHO if a team can end a contested game by intentionally committing a foul, then if at all possible we need to get that fixed.
-
Why?
The purpose of the penalty is to give the defense a sack and spotting the ball at the spot where the QB threw the pass instead of the QB throwing it incomplete and having no loss of yardage. If we applied that theory and gave a sack at the spot of the pass, the game is over in that scenario too. The rule is fine.
If the defense had been awarded a sack at the moment of the throw, the clock would have stopped and CM would have gotten a single timed down to end the game.
-
If the defense had been awarded a sack at the moment of the throw, the clock would have stopped and CM would have gotten a single timed down to end the game.
Agreed, at the time the ball was released there was time on the clock. The clock did not hit 0 until the ball was well downfield OB.
-
IMHO,
(1) The IG call was a judgement call = + for z^;
(2) allowing an untimed down AFTER an accepted LOD foul AND after a discussion involving
z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ z^ & yEs: = --- for z^s;
(3) I started doing this in 1969 and have made several goofs pi1eOn pi1eOn since;
(4) Fortunately, my goofs :-[ occurred in games where East Overshoe was playing
Clam Flats Corner and there were more cattle watching than humans;
(5) With the entire football nation aware of this goof, I empathise with the :-[ :-[ :-[ :-[
of the crew;
(6) the coach felt this was a cool way to run off the clock should have considered :
(a) the potential of it drawing an IG flag- if in doubt, he should have asked in
pregame;
(b) should have known the LOD=NO UTD rule and challenged after the call.
MAY THOU WHO HAS NEVER ERRED TOSS THE FIRST FLAG ^flag
-
IMHO,
MAY THOU WHO HAS NEVER ERRED TOSS THE FIRST FLAG ^flag
I'm guessing that we'd have lots of games with 0 flags if we had to follow that guidance! ;D
-
I have no problem with the rule as written. What real harm does it cause to intentionally ground the ball when time expires? We penalize, it's a loss of down and the period is not extended. Game over. Why should team B be entitled to get one more play?
-
I have no problem with the rule as written. What real harm does it cause to intentionally ground the ball when time expires? We penalize, it's a loss of down and the period is not extended. Game over. Why should team B be entitled to get one more play?
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?
-
What real harm does it cause to intentionally ground the ball when time expires?
Fine, but would you say the same thing about other fouls?
I think the intentional grounding rule should be done away with completely and have thought so for many years. I've always thought the way to protect the QB better is to allow him to dump it off. Its an incomplete pass and essentially a wasted down for the offense.
With that said, as long as its a foul, I think there's a gap in the rules when a team is allowed to foul on a play and essentially not be penalized at all. If the other team wants to decline it, that's fine but in this case there is no option.
-
I think the intentional grounding rule should be done away with completely and have thought so for many years. I've always thought the way to protect the QB better is to allow him to dump it off. Its an incomplete pass and essentially a wasted down for the offense.
But then you penalize the defense for beating the offense if the IG was done to prevent a sack. The way to protect the QB is for his line to do a better job of blocking.
-
Hulling loss of down penalties out of untimed downs occurred in NFHS back in 2005 & NCAA quickly followed. The rationale was the results of the finish of a high school championship game played in Louisiana the previous season :
(1) Team A scores to lead by 2 with 0:10 left in game;
(2) ensuing kickoff return turns into a rugby scrum;
(3) as B1 is about to be tackled @ A's 10 B1 hurls ball in air toward A's EZ;
(4) B2 catches ball in air in EZ - CLOCK READS 0:00;
(5) A takes B's IFP penalty to negate score;
(6) enter B3 ,who kicks game winning 33 yard field goal.
TIME TO CHANGE THE RULE...THE RULE GOT CHANGED
-
So what - this is the real world and another problem has come up where an intentional foul (if the rule was administered correctly) would end with the fouling team winning in part due to the result of the play. Like many things in life there are unintended consequences with many things that are not foreseen (although Rom saw this one years ago). Kind of like whack-a-mole - when a new problem crops up we fix it.
IMHO a new problem is here and we've got the video, let's fix it.
-
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...
-
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.
-
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.
tiphat: to H.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Yes, just let the offended team decide if they want the period extended or not
-
Easy solution - as noted above, simply allow the offended team to decline the untimed down since it would be part of the penalty statement.
-
If they were to change it, that would be the best idea!
-
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.
tiphat: 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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
-
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.
-
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).
-
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
-
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.
-
RR issued an "explanation" of the Rule, instead of including it on the video revie