wisconsin vs penn state - USC?

[Forksref]

Originally Posted by gsf23

It is easily fixed. Just make off-sides on the kick-off like a false start on offense. Blow it dead right away, penalize and kick again. No time comes off and teams would get no advantage from doing it.

Hopefully, the actions of Wisconsin will cause the NCAA to make the offsides (encroachment) the same as FED so that the play is shut down immediately and no time is run off.

[Theisey]

I doubt it, but hopefully, they will revert to the previous timing rule and not start the darn clock until it's touched by team-B on a free kick.

[RoyGardner]

We all should re-read the first couple of sections of the NCAA rule book. When a team runs a play like this that is an intentional foul (ie: coached and planned) we should be invoking the R's rule, call a USC, put the time back on the clock, and then re-kick.

And IMO when a team takes a clear intentional foul to gain an advantage, that is by definition cheating (dictionary definition of cheating: To violate rules deliberately, as in a game)

There should be absolutely no leeway for this type of "planned play". It makes a mockery of both the game and the rules.

[TXMike]

The coach admits it was a designed "play" and John Adams speaks out.

Badgers' ploy exploits new rule vs. PSU

By Rob Biertempfel
TRIBUNE-REVIEW
Tuesday, November 7, 2006

Wisconsin coach Bret Bielema found a loophole in the NCAA rule book and worked it to his advantage in Saturday's 13-3 victory against Penn State.

However, Bielema might not get a chance to do it again. His call caused a stir in the college football community and could lead to a rule change next season.

After scoring with 24 seconds left in the second quarter, nearly everyone on Wisconsin's kick team was blatantly offside on back-to-back kickoffs.

Under an NCAA rule put in place this year, the clock begins running the moment the ball is kicked. So when Wisconsin lined up for its third kickoff, only four seconds remained in the half.


The third kickoff was a squib -- with none of the Badgers offside -- which was returned to the 39-yard line as time expired.

"Obviously, that's taking advantage of the rules and shouldn't be allowed," John Adams, the NCAA's rules interpreter, said Monday. "We certainly wouldn't condone that."

Yesterday, during his weekly press conference, Bielema offered no apologies.

"It worked out exactly as we envisioned it," Bielema said. "It was something that we had practiced."

Bielema was able to burn the clock because of a rule the NCAA playing rules oversight panel approved during the offseason. The rationale for the rule change was that it would help trim the length of games by about five minutes.

"I don't necessarily agree with the rule the way that it's written," Bielema said. "But I knew the rule, and I wanted to maximize it. I have to put my team in a position to have success."

After the second kickoff attempt, Penn State coach Joe Paterno ran onto the field and asked why the referees had not called an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty against Wisconsin.

"He was upset that (the Badgers) were doing it deliberately," Nittany Lions defensive coordinator Tom Bradley said.

No penalty was called, but the referees told both teams the clock would not start if the third kick was offside.

Adams said something should have been done after the first blatant offside play.

"I think after the first time it happens, you know what's going on and that it's an unfair act," Adams said.

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."

Big Ten spokesman Scott Chipman said the kickoff sequence would be reviewed by Dave Parry, the league's head of officials. Parry was unavailable for comment.

"The officials could have called an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty ... but that's a judgment call, and we do not comment on judgment calls," Chipman said.

Since the start of the season, many Division I coaches have been openly critical of the rule. More than 17,500 fans have signed an online petition asking the NCAA to return to the old guidelines.

The NCAA football rules committee likely will reconsider the rule at its next meeting, in February.

"My guess is, because of the exposure we got, there may be an adaption for next year's rule book," Bielema said, with a grin. "But until then, that's the rule as it stands."

[Theisey]

great post TxMike.

I love that part "Obviously, that's taking advantage of the rules and shouldn't be allowed".

Heck, who wouldn't take advantage of a rule. It was there for the taking.

So, now what should be the NCAA direction for any copycats lurking out there. The season ain't over yet.

[MJT]

I had not yet seen the kicks. That is total BS. Bret Bielema was not maximizing the rule, he was found a loophole and exploited it, which in my book is cheating!!! I would have nailed him with "unfair acts" the first time, had a 15 USC on the head coach, pnd put the time back on the clock. IMO, the coach should be fined by the league as well. Total BS! If I was Wisconson, I'd fine him myself for making the institution look bad. Have I said total BS!!!

[sj]

Another way of handling this could be to invoke the Unfair act provision and simply mark off the five yards, put time back on the clock, and re-kick. Putting the time back up would be the R's way of doing the equitable thing.

Either that or like the other guys have said flag him for UC. Go stand right in front of the coach and then see how high you can throw your flag. : >)

It's all over the media about how brilliant he was to find a loophole and take advantage of it. And that he was just taking advantage of the rule just like any coach should. But what if he had been flagged for UC? Everybody in the media would be saying what an idiot he was for not thinking it all the way through. And I'm certainly not saying I would have done it in real time either so please don't think I'm criticizing the crew because I'm not.

[MD Longhorn]

I REALLY don't think we can fault the coach for doing this. "Taking advantage of a rule"? Isn't this what they do on every play? Is it "taking advantage of a rule" to vary a snap count to try to draw the defense off side? Is it "taking advantage of a rule" to commit pass interference when you know you are beat, and suffering the 15-yard penalty instead of giving up a likely TD? What about Team K intentionally fouling to prevent Team R from scoring on a try? Should officials make up rules on the spot on these plays, superceding the actual rules that cover these situations?

Of course not.

Yes - the coach took advantage of what he (and the rest of us) saw as a loophole in the rules. But that's his job. This particular one only draws such ire because A) no one else thought of it first, and B) the rule is new and already disliked.

Blame the NCAA for not thinking a rule all the way through before implementation. Don't blame the coach, and surely don't blame the officials for not being "creative" with the rulebook. THEY didn't write the rule.

And blame Paterno for not declining the foul and at least getting the ball back for one play.

[Theisey]

I wish the old McGriff archives were available. I can almost see the postings slamming this rule change and questioning what will or should the NCAA do to plug the hole before the season starts. They did nothing, not even a bulletin. They never saw it coming, but a lot of posters sure did.

I'm just surprised it took as long as it did before some team actually exploited the hole this rule opened. I wonder if bulletin#5 will be forthcoming?

[blevak]

The point of my question was whether a USC should have been called. That's one of the reasons the USC rule is there - to care for situations that have not been explicitly cared for in the rules and to negate any unfair advantage a team may gain by "pushing the limits" of the rule.
There is the "letter of the law" and the "spirit of the law". If all we were to go by, as officials, was the letter of the law, then by all means, don't flag Wisconsin. But if the spirit of the law was to speed up the game AND we also read the USC rule, then doesn't it seem that Wisconsin should have been flagged for USC?
Football is not life and death as someone once said, it's more important than that, but it still is just a game. Rules are there to make it a fairer game between two teams, or have I missed something?

[MD Longhorn]

Calling USC does nothing to alleviate this situation. Walk off 15 instead of 5, so what - Wisconsin doesn't care.

The only legitimate recourse available to the officials was to use the Unfair Acts clause and put time back on the clock. Can you imagine the firestorm that this would have generated? The ONLY people on the planet who would have considered that a good solution are those of us on this board (and JoePa, I suppose). They would have been crucified. We all see that unfamiliar rule in the books, and because we live here on this board, we've discussed it ad infinitum in many different contexts.

But truthfully - who here has actually USED the rule that lets us make seemingly (to the unknowing fan/coach) unilateral decisions regarding fairness to override an existing rule (the existing rules that are in print and known by the general public)? Other than "Where's the tee" type plays, which most of us read about but have never SEEN, when does this rule crop up? Never.

How can we fault the officials for not invoking an EXTREMELY rarely used rule to instill fairness into this situation? How can we fault a coach who was seemingly creative with a new rule, and worked completely within that rule (I say again --- nothing prevented PennState from declining the penalty and taking the ball!) in an attempt to win. How is that worse than any other trick play that is currently legal?

How can we NOT fault the NCAA for allowing this loophole (one obvious to any official who has been on any of these boards in this past year) to continue until it was abused? Place the blame where it is deserved, guys.

[blevak]

I do fault the NCAA for not foreseeing this.

From one of my law professors, I remember that, "Ignorance is no excuse in the law." And because it can not be used as an excuse, I also fault the coaches. They are the mentors and leaders the players look to for guidance, character and leadership.

[TXMike]

I don't blame the NCAA for not catching it but I do blame them for a process which makes it all too easy for changes to be made without being vetted through some active officisals or supervisors. The way the process is now, we have to rely on coaches and administrators to understand the rules well enough to know the true potential impact of changes. Who hear wants to say any of them really understand the rules? And then the changes go to the PROP which I believe has NO football related people at all on it. Only one person, John Adams, has any officiating background and, sad to say, he may be past his prime.

[parepat]

Originally Posted by RoyGardner

We all should re-read the first couple of sections of the NCAA rule book. When a team runs a play like this that is an intentional foul (ie: coached and planned) we should be invoking the R's rule, call a USC, put the time back on the clock, and then re-kick.

And IMO when a team takes a clear intentional foul to gain an advantage, that is by definition cheating (dictionary definition of cheating: To violate rules deliberately, as in a game)

There should be absolutely no leeway for this type of "planned play". It makes a mockery of both the game and the rules.

Let me know how calling an USC for every planned delay of game taken by an offense works out for you. The brush you are painting with is a little too wide.

[sj]

So how might this end up working? Is it necessary for the NCAA to come out with a bulletin saying how the situation will be handled the rest of the year? Would it be left up to each individual conference? Should the offended coach just be ready to accept the penalty, in spite of the obvious disadvantages doing this creates, the first time until the rule can be formally changed?