The Official Forum  

Go Back   The Official Forum > Football

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Rate Thread Display Modes
  #31 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 05:21pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: MA
Posts: 127
My comment was to those planned flagrant fouls, like this one, that make a mockery of the rules. This isn't even close to the "planned delay of game", or the intentional "breaking the huddle" with 12. If you think it's even close to those you're missing a good game.
__________________
"It's easy to get the players, Getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part." - Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #32 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 10:18pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Lightbulb Canadian Ruling

Quote:
Originally Posted by blevak
Is it just me, or did the Wisconsin team actually commit two intentional offsides penalties during the last 20 or so seconds of the first half? Seems to me this is should be either a USC and/or replacing time on the clock. Although the latter seems fair (in fact both do to me), I'm not entirely sure that replacing time is allowed.
We can't have this problem arise in Canada. After the 3 minute warning, any penalty app has the clock start on the snap. No messing with the clock in our game.
__________________
Pope Francis
Reply With Quote
  #33 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 10:23pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,643
During the UAB game on ESPN, the announcer stated that he talked with the officials prior to the game and they said that they have been directed to interpret such actions as USC. It was not clear if the directive came from C-USA or the NCAA.
Reply With Quote
  #34 (permalink)  
Old Fri Nov 10, 2006, 10:53pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyGardner
My comment was to those planned flagrant fouls, like this one, that make a mockery of the rules. This isn't even close to the "planned delay of game", or the intentional "breaking the huddle" with 12. If you think it's even close to those you're missing a good game.
How exactly is this a flagrant foul. The actions of this coach does not make a mockery of the rules. Instead, this coach used the rules to his advantage and made a mockery of those who instituted this poorly designed rule.

This rule is ridiculous. How much time does it save over the course of a game. Get rid of it!
Reply With Quote
  #35 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 11, 2006, 12:16am
sj sj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 360
The actions of this coach does not make a mockery of the rules.

***At least in one conference it sounds like they disagree. According to the post above they have been told to flag it as UC.
Reply With Quote
  #36 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 11, 2006, 12:52am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2001
Posts: 508
Quote:
Originally Posted by sj
The actions of this coach does not make a mockery of the rules.

***At least in one conference it sounds like they disagree. According to the post above they have been told to flag it as UC.

Looks like CYA for the guys who made a bad rule.
Reply With Quote
  #37 (permalink)  
Old Sat Nov 11, 2006, 10:44pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Posts: 39
Have to agree with ParePat on this one. The coach did not make a mockery of the rule, he took advantage of the rule. But be a little "shady", but whatever it takes to win. My question is this, what if the coach were not so open about his violation of the rule? What if he told two or three guys to be 1 or 2 yards offside at the time of the kick? Then it looks like an innocent mistake, but the same result is achieved. Are you still going to flag the coach for a USC? If so, how do you judge it was intentional?
Reply With Quote
  #38 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 06:16am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: MA
Posts: 127
"How exactly is this a flagrant foul."

1. 10 players were offside
2. So far offside that most were at the B restraining line at the kick
3. Meaning that A had no chance of returning kick (part of "planned play")
4. Intent of which was to use time and prevent runback
5. And by preventing any real chance at return, forcing B to take penalty

Coaching an intentional foul in such a way as to put the opponent at a significant disadvantage IMO is the definition of both FLAGRANT and UNSPORTSMANLIKE.
__________________
"It's easy to get the players, Getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part." - Casey Stengel
Reply With Quote
  #39 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 09:26am
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
Quote:
Originally Posted by RoyGardner
...

3. Meaning that A had no chance of returning kick (part of "planned play")
..
First of all, the receiving team is called team-B.

Regardless, team-B has one guy returning the ball and 10 other players who are supposed to be blocking the 10 team-A players, ignoring the kicker for the moment. So you are telling us that they gave up this job because the kicking team was offside? Nonsense.
You sound more like a whining coach here.
Reply With Quote
  #40 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 12:01pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2000
Posts: 14,616
"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.
__________________
"...as cool as the other side of the pillow." - Stuart Scott

"You should never be proud of doing the right thing." - Dean Smith
Reply With Quote
  #41 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 12:08pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 1,643
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theisey
Regardless, team-B has one guy returning the ball and 10 other players who are supposed to be blocking the 10 team-A players, ignoring the kicker for the moment. So you are telling us that they gave up this job because the kicking team was offside? Nonsense.
You sound more like a whining coach here.
9 or 10 of those players are running to a planned spot on the field before they start blocking. This play relies on the timing of the team B players running to a spot and getting set up to block before the A players reach that spot. In this play the team A players are 10 yards closer than what team B is used to. This thows off the timing of the entire blocking scheme. You cannot expect team B to be able to do a decent job of blocking under those conditions.
Reply With Quote
  #42 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 12:55pm
Official Forum Member
 
Join Date: May 2000
Posts: 1,464
Not being able to do a decent job blocking, maybe, not being able to adjust to the situation is another but "no chance of a return" is being just plain grasping at straws.
Reply With Quote
  #43 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 03:49pm
Adam's Avatar
Keeper of the HAMMER
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: MST
Posts: 27,190
Okay, guys. As a basketball ref, I have to ask. 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?

I'm just asking.
__________________
Sprinkles are for winners.

Last edited by Adam; Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 03:52pm.
Reply With Quote
  #44 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 04:32pm
Fav theme: Roundball Rock
 
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: Near Dog River (sorta)
Posts: 8,558
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
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?
Purposely taking a safety is a tactical play that does not involved a penalty. A team is willing to sacrifice a mere 2 points for field position. Sure, the kicking team intentionally went waaay offside for tactical reasons - to prevent a return. But they also did it to manipulate the clock.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Snaqwells
Or, how is it different than than fouling to stop the clock in a basketball game?
Fouling to stop the clock in a basketball game, if done correctly, is a legal play to obtain possession of the ball.

Properly taught players "go for the ball" and if successful, are rewarded with a loose ball (rarely a straight possession change occurs) and can then gain possession of the loose ball. If the defending action is unsuccessful, team A either retains possession, re-gains possession, or is awarded foul shot(s). If the official deems that clock manipulation occured, or no play on the ball was attempted, the penalty is upgraded to an intentional foul, which carries a more severe penalty.

Clearly the actions of the kicking team were clock manipulation, so the argument is that a more severe penalty could apply.
__________________
Pope Francis

Last edited by JugglingReferee; Sun Nov 12, 2006 at 08:10pm.
Reply With Quote
  #45 (permalink)  
Old Sun Nov 12, 2006, 06:58pm
sj sj is offline
Registered User
 
Join Date: Jan 2001
Posts: 360
Reading through these posts it seems there is universal agreement that the rule needs to be changed and also universal agreement that it will be.

I understand honest disagreements over whether the penalties on Wisconsin should have been escalated from what was done.

My question goes to those who think the coach fairly exploited a rule or really for anybody for that matter......Is it OK to make a mid-season correction and have conference supervisors instruct their crews how they should handle it if someone else tries it? That seems to be what has happened with the C-USA crew. Or should the whole situation just be left alone until the off season with nothing said?
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Penn St./FSU Safety? shave-tail Football 9 Wed Jan 04, 2006 09:33am
Wisconsin FB Officials ssmith Football 2 Tue Nov 01, 2005 09:26am
Wisconsin officials wisref2 Football 2 Fri Oct 14, 2005 09:49am
State Government Defeated in Attempt to Control State Association mikesears Football 14 Wed Apr 20, 2005 07:35am
Wisconsin LDUB Baseball 5 Sun Jul 25, 2004 10:59am


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:36am.



Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.3.0 RC1