Alamo and the Sun Belt

[kd0254]

Watching ESPN halftime during the OK-Oregon Holiday Bowl Last night the heads said that during the play where LLoyd used the first time out, and actually got the touchdown reversed (This was a smart move on him, the snap was immenent) That there was some sort of malfunction in the replay equipment and that the booth official was trying to buzz on field officials to no avail. Would this be a situation where a timeout could be in a sense given back? It seemed pretty clear from a fan's viewpoint that the reason the TO was called was to give time for a look at replay. Would NCAA rules warrant any flexibility when there are technical difficulties? And if not, should this be an issue for next year?

[Sonofanump]

9-2-1 seems to apply to players entering the field that do not effect the outcome of the play i.e. playing entering the field to celebrate a touchdown prior to the runner crossing the goal line. Did one of the entering persons make contact with a legal player? I do not know, but it seems that they effected the outcome of the play. Why would 5-2-a not apply here? I am asking, not informing.

[gscsj]

Originally posted by Zebra29
The NCAA waived their "must work together as a crew for five games" verbage in the their postseason requirements for officials. Was this an actual Sun Belt crew working the crew, or a compilation of the Sun Belt's best officials working as a crew, perhaps for the first time? That would explain the lack of cohesion.

This requirement must only be for playoff games (D-1AA, D-2, and D-3) as I've never heard of a bowl crew as being a regular crew throughout the year. The conferences typically send their top rated officials to bowl games whether or not they have worked together during the regular season. I'm sure this bowl crew was no different.

[TXMike]

Originally posted by mcrowder
TX - please explain how you think there would be no play after a penalty for Illegal Participation? If what you are saying is right, every defense on every last play should rush 40 people out on the field to stop it.

It depends on how they would have chosen to flag the acts. If they had used 9-2-2-b-1 then it would have been a "live ball penalized as dead ball" foul and there would be no enforcement. If they called it a 9-1-4-a foul, then there would have been a replay. Media reports are quoting Dave Parry saying there would have been no replay so he apparently saw it as a 9-2-2-b-1 foul. I don't agree. In either case it could not have been an illegal participation foul.

[JasonTX]

Originally posted by PWL
I believe a flag was thrown somewhere. I don't even do football. As for my knowledge, a half or a quarter cannot end on a defensive penalty only. This would have been offsetting penalties, time expired. No do over anyway.

The qtr. or 1/2 can't end on any accepted live ball foul not penalized as a dead ball foul by either team, not just the defense. This also applies to offsetting live ball fouls.

[iebrf14]

Guys,

This issue was why there was no flags.

We already know that if the flag were thrown they would be administered as dead ball fouls and even if they did not offset they would not do anything as the game was over with no time left on the clock.

And no score

[TXMike]

That is not correct. There is a provision in the book that would have permitted penalties to offset as live ball fouls and down replayed. I can't answer why there were no flags.

[mcrowder]

One of the players that came off the side of the field was a mere 1 yard from the ball carrier after the ball was pitched back (just after the "fumble" or incomplete backward pass part of this play), and the ballcarrier DEFINITELY altered his direction of his run because of that player and because of the hoard of players further to his left.

To me, this was clearly illegal participation, possibly warranting an awarded score, but at the very least allowing a replay. Whether Mich's coaches entering the field of play is debatable, but at the very least it would be offsetting illegal participations. Personally, I would have had IP on Nebr, and SW on Michigan - not offsetting, and Michigan would have run another play - from the 6 1/2 of Nebraska.

[iebrf14]

Replay would not be available to see who came on for NE and if he did change the runners direction and/or if the MICH players kept one of the NE players (Who was reallly the saftey) from getting to the ball carrier)

The games over and we all could say that MICH should not have allowed NE to get back into the game.

We could discuss this game ad nauseam.

NUFF SAID

[mcrowder]

A true point that they could not use replay. But put yourself in the place of either linesman on the Nebraska side. You're watching the play, and all of a sudden, people from BEHIND you are now in FRONT of you. I don't know about you, but I know my flag is on the ground at this point - and I'm watching this (these!) player(s) in my peripheral vision to see if they come anywhere near the play. When the play comes back my way - the penalty becomes illegal participation.

The problem lie in the fact that this crew was in over their heads. This exact sitch could happen to ANY of us, and I would hope that we would be aware of our surroundings enough to at LEAST have laundry on the field. At least when we botch this one, it's not on national TV, replayed on ESPN over and over.

[JasonTX]

Originally posted by mcrowder

To me, this was clearly illegal participation, possibly warranting an awarded score, but at the very least allowing a replay. Whether Mich's coaches entering the field of play is debatable, but at the very least it would be offsetting illegal participations. Personally, I would have had IP on Nebr, and SW on Michigan - not offsetting, and Michigan would have run another play - from the 6 1/2 of Nebraska.

What rule would you use to support a Sideline Warning? Illegal participation occurs when more than 11 players participate after the snap. At the snap both teams had 11 players so it's not illegal participation. If the players or coaches simply step onto the field they have violated 9-2-1-b-1 which is an USC (penalized as a dead ball foul) . If they truly interefered they have committed Illegal Interference 9-1-4. The signal is the same as USC but this foul is a live ball foul with basic spot enforcement. Perhaps the thing to do would penalize NE for Illegal interference and then penalize MI for USC for being on the field but not interfering. 15 yards using basic spot enforcement for the interference and then 15 yards for the USC from the succeeding spot.

[Dommer1]

I would have no problem invoking 9-2-3-c. I think having about 100 people on the field blocking of at least half of it is a situation so extreme that you can't really say it's specifically covered by the rules. This would allow the referee to enforce any penalty he deems equitable. No way am I calling this a live ball foul penalized as a dead ball foul.

[TXMike]

MAybe Mr Parry is reading our discussion boards. Word is out that the 2006 NCAA Officiating video includes the last play of the Alamobowl and now Mr Parry is saying, as many of us said back then, should have been offsetting penalties and down replay.