Exploiting the rules

[Nevadaref]

wisconsin vs penn state - USC?

I saw a story about this on ESPN a couple of days ago and sure enough the football board has a thread on it.

Although this occurred in an NCAA football game, the philosophy applies to officiating in general. It is certainly worth your time to read post #19 in the above thread, especially if you haven't seen or heard about this already.

[BktBallRef]

"Adams said the refs should have taken action under a rule that states: "If an obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules occurs during the game, the referee may take any action he considers equitable, including assessing a penalty."

What a totally moronic comment. Why put the officials in that position? Simply change the rule so that it's not possible to can an unintended advantage in such a way. Oh yeah, that make that call and then get suspended by the Big Ten for writing their own rules. Gimmie a break, John.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by BktBallRef

"Adams said the refs should have taken action under a rule that states: "If an obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules occurs during the game, the referee may take any action he considers equitable, including assessing a penalty."

What a totally moronic comment.

I thought so, too. Partly because it IS covered by the rules. Right? I mean, they broke the rule and got the penalty that was specified by that rule. The fact that they meant to do it doesn't change anything in my opinion.

[Adam]

How is this different than purposefully taking a safety on fourth down when you're buried at your own 2 yard line with 20 seconds left?
Or, how is it different than than fouling to stop the clock in a basketball game?

Conversely, maybe it should be viewed more like the defense committing a delay of game penalty to stop the clock with less than 5 seconds left. Ignore it or go straight to the T.

[Scrapper1]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

maybe it should be viewed more like the defense committing a delay of game penalty to stop the clock with less than 5 seconds left. Ignore it or go straight to the T.

You can't ignore it in the football scenario, because if you simply ignore it, the kicking team is so far downfield that there's no chance for a return. They'll beat the ball to the return man. So you have to penalize it somehow.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

You can't ignore it in the football scenario, because if you simply ignore it, the kicking team is so far downfield that there's no chance for a return. They'll beat the ball to the return man. So you have to penalize it somehow.

True enough. Same thing with the delay of game, it's possible the players doing it will go so far you can't ignore it; then the direction from NFHS is to go straight to the T.
I think the similar penalty against Wisconsin would have been to put time back on the clock. Or, for Penn State to not make them rekick. Bielema was probably pinching himself when he got to do kick it a second time. The thing is, JoePa has a ready-made fix on this. Take the kick and the extra 5 yards. Granted, there may not be much of a return, but it's better than not getting a play off.
The rules allow for this, just as they allow for the safety I mentioned, or the delay of game penalty on 4th and 1.

If the NCAA doesn't like it, they need to change the rules. I'm sure they will; probably by changing the clock rule in the last 2 minutes; or adding a provision to add the time back on the clock and rekick.

How's this? The penalty for offsides on a kickoff is three fold: 10 yard penalty, put the time back on, and don't start the clock until the receiving team touches it on the 2nd kick. This adds an incentive for doing it right the first time.

[LDUB]

Originally Posted by Scrapper1

I thought so, too. Partly because it IS covered by the rules. Right? I mean, they broke the rule and got the penalty that was specified by that rule. The fact that they meant to do it doesn't change anything in my opinion.

Wisconsin intentionally committed fouls which put them in a win-win situation. If the penalty is refused then Penn St. would be stuck near their own goal line because of the way they threw off the timing of the blocker by being 8 yards closer than normal. If the penalty is accepted then Wisconsin is able to run more time off the clock. Either way the recieving team is screwed. The fouling team should not benefit both if the penalty is enforced or refused.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Wisconsin intentionally committed fouls which put them in a win-win situation. If the penalty is refused then Penn St. would be stuck near their own goal line because of the way they threw off the timing of the blocker by being 8 yards closer than normal. If the penalty is accepted then Wisconsin is able to run more time off the clock. Either way the recieving team is screwed. The fouling team should not benefit both if the penalty is enforced or refused.

Then the NCAA needs to alter the rule; and think through the next rule change. This was just stupid.

[sj]

Originally Posted by LDUB

Wisconsin intentionally committed fouls which put them in a win-win situation. If the penalty is refused then Penn St. would be stuck near their own goal line because of the way they threw off the timing of the blocker by being 8 yards closer than normal. If the penalty is accepted then Wisconsin is able to run more time off the clock. Either way the recieving team is screwed. The fouling team should not benefit both if the penalty is enforced or refused.

Exactly.

In hindsight it would have been well within the right of the R to either assess an UC, or assess the five yards and put the time back up on the clock invoking an unfair act situation. I wouldn't have got it either but it's a lesson learned.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

Then the NCAA needs to alter the rule; and think through the next rule change. This was just stupid.

Though in Canada, I did follow the discussion about this rule change when it was released by the NCAA. Many pundits in both this forum and at refstipes idenitifed this issue as a pile of uranium wiating to happen. With a pile of NCAA games this season, it was a foregone conclusion that this sitch would occur. It's been concluded that the NCAA didn't think this one through.

Sometimes it takes a person with a different perspective offer something that the think tank overlooks. Maybe the NCAA rules cmte. should come to of.com/football every February.