OSU-Central Michigan finish

[Texas Aggie]

how the MAC is officiating a Big 12 home game

Non conference games are covered by the contract between schools. Sometimes, the visiting team's conference covers them, sometimes the home team's and other times they get them from a third conference. A Big 12 crew worked Houston vs. OU and a Pac 12 crew worked UCLA vs. A&M last week -- both road teams' conferences were at the game. Houston and College Station are an hour and a half apart and the crews should have just switched games.

I think the NCAA should require the third conference option.

[JugglingReferee]

Side guy got in the way of the deep guy. Mechanics flub as well as a rules flub.

Having said that, the offense deliberately commited a foul and benefitted from it in the most perfect way - winning the game. Logic dictates that the non-offending team should be given something, and if that something is one untimed down where they win on a Hail Mary/lateral, then so be it.

[JugglingReferee]

Video : https://streamable.com/z8gs

Twitter : https://www.twitter.com/MikePereira/...96457353895936

[CT1]

Was this even IG? Wasn't done to conserve time or avoid loss of yardage.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by CT1

Was this even IG? Wasn't done to conserve time or avoid loss of yardage.

True. A backward pass to the sideline would've accomplished the same result, and then IG wouldn't've even been considered.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by CT1

Was this even IG? Wasn't done to conserve time or avoid loss of yardage.

OL let DL by, and two of them were right on the QB. Had to throw or risk being sacked. A sack by definition is a loss of yards.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

OL let DL by, and two of them were right on the QB. Had to throw or risk being sacked. A sack by definition is a loss of yards.

But look at 7-3-2. The relevant provisions are all "The passer to conserve time..." and "The passer to conserve yardage..." What's material to this case is not whether a loss of yardage would've occurred, but what the passer's motiv'n was. The ball was not thrown to conserve either time or field position, but to consume time. So I don't see intentional grounding.

Suppose it were an opposite kind of situation. Time for the half expires during the down before A1 throws an intentionally incomplete forward pass under conditions where it looks like team A would've liked another down. It would not in fact have conserved time, but the passer's purpose was to conserve time, so it's intentional grounding. I doubt anyone would care about the enforcement, because the period ends anyway, but that's what's meant by those "The passer to..." phrases: to outlaw certain passes on the basis of the passer's purpose, not the result.

[JugglingReferee]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

But look at 7-3-2. The relevant provisions are all "The passer to conserve time..." and "The passer to conserve yardage..." What's material to this case is not whether a loss of yardage would've occurred, but what the passer's motiv'n was. The ball was not thrown to conserve either time or field position, but to consume time. So I don't see intentional grounding.

Suppose it were an opposite kind of situation. Time for the half expires during the down before A1 throws an intentionally incomplete forward pass under conditions where it looks like team A would've liked another down. It would not in fact have conserved time, but the passer's purpose was to conserve time, so it's intentional grounding. I doubt anyone would care about the enforcement, because the period ends anyway, but that's what's meant by those "The passer to..." phrases: to outlaw certain passes on the basis of the passer's purpose, not the result.

His motivation was to avoid being sacked. That he threw it high, far, and to an area with no receiver is an additional aspect to the play that doesn't remove the fact that two defenders would have easily tackled him without the throw.

Avoiding the sack conserves yardage (item h): the incomplete pass means that B would take over further from A's EZ than if he was sacked.

[OKREF]

Originally Posted by CT1

Was this even IG? Wasn't done to conserve time or avoid loss of yardage.

Still in pocket, no receiver in area. Had he rolled out about 5 feet he would have been fine.

[JugglingReferee]

I'd love to know if one of the officials suggested there isn't an untimed down, and that the game is therefore over, yet was "over-ruled" by a majority or convincing comrade.

At least they all know the rule now. As does the whole country.

[BoomerSooner]

Originally Posted by JugglingReferee

I'd love to know if one of the officials suggested there isn't an untimed down, and that the game is therefore over, yet was "over-ruled" by a majority or convincing comrade.

At least they all know the rule now. As does the whole country.

This is what happened to me and why my initial post sided with how it was handled on the field. I assumed that guys at that level had to be right. As I posted in another thread, my gut reaction was that it wasn't right and I said as much to my son. He questioned me because he knows I usually reserve those kind of statements until I know with certainty that a mistake was made. By the time I posted the OP in this thread, I had convinced myself I was wrong and that I must be missing something in the NCAA rules.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by OKREF

Still in pocket, no receiver in area.

Those conditions are necessary but not sufficient to call intentional grounding. It still has to be done to conserve time or the spot, and this was for neither.

[Rich]

Originally Posted by Robert Goodman

Those conditions are necessary but not sufficient to call intentional grounding. It still has to be done to conserve time or the spot, and this was for neither.

Supposed to read minds or ask the QB? The throw conserved yards. That's all I, as a WH, care about. Grounding.