wisconsin vs penn state - USC?

[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.

[JugglingReferee]

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.

[LDUB]

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.

[parepat]

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!

[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.

[parepat]

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.

[BuckeyeRef]

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?

[RoyGardner]

"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.

[Theisey]

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.

[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.

[LDUB]

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.

[Theisey]

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.

[Adam]

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.

[JugglingReferee]

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.

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.

[sj]

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?