OK State v CM

[cperezprg]

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

[Eastshire]

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?

[Rulesman]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

...... 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. 

[bama_stripes]

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."

[NVFOA_Ump]

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".

[bossman72]

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.

[hefnerjm]

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.

[TxBJ]

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."

[Ralph Damren]

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.

[Kalle]

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)."

[Morningrise]

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?

[Joe Stack]

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.

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[ump_ben]

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. 

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[Ralph Damren]

IMHO,
   (1) The IG call was a judgement call = + for ;

   (2) allowing an untimed down AFTER an accepted LOD foul AND after a discussion involving
          &  = --- for z^s;

   (3) I started doing this in 1969 and have made several goofs 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

[NVFOA_Ump]

IMHO,

MAY THOU WHO HAS NEVER ERRED TOSS THE FIRST FLAG

I'm guessing that we'd have lots of games with 0 flags if we had to follow that guidance!   

[JasonTX]

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? 

[NVFOA_Ump]

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?

[Joe Stack]

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.

[bama_stripes]

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.

[Ralph Damren]

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

   

[NVFOA_Ump]

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.

[WingOfficial]

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...