Football Officiating > NCAA Discussion

Is this what they want?

(1/3) > >>

ElvisLives:
For 2021:

4/10, B-40, 0:12 (4), A=14, B=14.
A11 advances to the B-31, where he is contacted by opponents, but is moving forward when he attempts a backward pass to A89 from the B-30. A89 first touches the ball at the B-29, completes the catch, and advances to the B-10, where he is forced out of bounds after time has expired in the period.

Ruling: B may decline the penalty for the illegal forward pass (made from beyond the NZ) and allow the game to move to an Extra Period, or B may accept the 5-yard penalty at the spot of the pass (B-30), with a loss of down, which will award the ball to Team B at the B-35. Team B will then be given the option to extend the period for an untimed down, OR allow regulation play to end, and move to an Extra Period. If Team B opts to extend the period, the next down will be B, 1/10, B-35, no game clock (25). (Here is where the R uses the "finger twirl" signal to notify the GCO and the pressbox that the next down will be an untimed down. The GCO doesn't care, because he has already figured this out, has grabbed the last chicken wing off the buffet, and is on the elevator down to the ground level, headin' for his car.)

They could go for the hail Mary, or have a rugby-style scrimmage with multiple running plays with backward passes. Or, they could disappoint everybody and take a knee.  >:(

The 2021 rule change would appear to make this a viable option. Previously, the period would have ended - no option, due to the loss-of-down in the penalty statement. But the 2021 rule change gives the offended team the option to extend the period for a foul that has loss-of-down in the penalty statement.

Have I got this right?

Legacy Zebra:
Yes, this is what the change is supposed to do. There was a play a few years ago in the Central Michigan vs Oklahoma State game that highlighted a bit of a loophole and this is the response to that loophole.

The play: 4/10 @ 50, 0:08 left in the 4th, A leads by 4

A11 takes the snap and drops straight back. He throws a forward pass high and deep away from any eligible receiver in an attempt to let the game clock expire. The Referee flags A11 for ING. They penalize the loss of down at the previous spot, but incorrectly gave Team B an untimed down. Team B completes a Hail Mary to win the game.

While the crew got the enforcement wrong, many believed that what they did was more fair than the correct ruling would have been. If they had gotten it right, Team A would have won the game by fouling. So here we are with a rule change to let the offended team have the option to extend the period if they would benefit from that.

ElvisLives:

--- Quote from: Legacy Zebra on May 12, 2021, 02:31:46 PM ---Yes, this is what the change is supposed to do. There was a play a few years ago in the Central Michigan vs Oklahoma State game that highlighted a bit of a loophole and this is the response to that loophole.

The play: 4/10 @ 50, 0:08 left in the 4th, A leads by 4

A11 takes the snap and drops straight back. He throws a forward pass high and deep away from any eligible receiver in an attempt to let the game clock expire. The Referee flags A11 for ING. They penalize the loss of down at the previous spot, but incorrectly gave Team B an untimed down. Team B completes a Hail Mary to win the game.

While the crew got the enforcement wrong, many believed that what they did was more fair than the correct ruling would have been. If they had gotten it right, Team A would have won the game by fouling. So here we are with a rule change to let the offended team have the option to extend the period if they would benefit from that.

--- End quote ---

Yeah, that was the down that I presumed caused this change. BTW, they did penalize at the spot of the pass, not the previous spot. But, yeah. Extending the period was incorrect, for that day and time. The sad thing is that a smart team would have found a way to run around for 8 seconds, making all of this moot. I don't know what happened to those guys, but I hope it didn't affect their long-term careers.

JDM:

--- Quote from: ElvisLives on May 12, 2021, 01:24:44 PM ---For 2021:

4/10, B-40, 0:12 (4), A=14, B=14.
A11 advances to the B-31, where he is contacted by opponents, but is moving forward when he attempts a backward pass to A89 from the B-30. A89 first touches the ball at the B-29, completes the catch, and advances to the B-10, where he is forced out of bounds after time has expired in the period.

Ruling: B may decline the penalty for the illegal forward pass (made from beyond the NZ) and allow the game to move to an Extra Period, or B may accept the 5-yard penalty at the spot of the pass (B-30), with a loss of down, which will award the ball to Team B at the B-35. Team B will then be given the option to extend the period for an untimed down, OR allow regulation play to end, and move to an Extra Period. If Team B opts to extend the period, the next down will be B, 1/10, B-35, no game clock (25). (Here is where the R uses the "finger twirl" signal to notify the GCO and the pressbox that the next down will be an untimed down. The GCO doesn't care, because he has already figured this out, has grabbed the last chicken wing off the buffet, and is on the elevator down to the ground level, headin' for his car.)

They could go for the hail Mary, or have a rugby-style scrimmage with multiple running plays with backward passes. Or, they could disappoint everybody and take a knee.  >:(

The 2021 rule change would appear to make this a viable option. Previously, the period would have ended - no option, due to the loss-of-down in the penalty statement. But the 2021 rule change gives the offended team the option to extend the period for a foul that has loss-of-down in the penalty statement.

Have I got this right?

--- End quote ---

I only disagree with the statement that there will be a wing to be had...

sj:
Rom Gilbert has advocated for this change for quite awhile. And Elvis I know a couple of those guys and they're still working and doing fine.

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page

Go to full version