wisconsin vs penn state - USC?

[Theisey]

First of all, I have no team interest in the game so I can say that Wisconsin did NOT cheat.
They exploited a rule quirk that from the day the rule changes came out were talked about and beat up as being bad but also 100% legal at this time. All we needed was for a team to do it. In this case, do it twice because the penalty was accepted.

I do hope a change is in store for next year.

[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.

[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?

[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.

[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.

[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.

[sloth]

Originally Posted by 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.

Whats the big deal? These are supposed to be some of the best officials in the country. I don't think asking them to use basic common sense is too much to ask. In fact, I'd fault a HS crew for not taking the same action. Any trained moneky can blindly enforce rules, we are expected to think and apply some common sense to those rules. To a be a game manager and not a strict rules enforcer is what we are called to do.

BTW...I don't think this is grounds for a USC. Simply back them up 5 yards, add time back to the clock. Tell the offending coach if he does this again he will be looking at time being re-added to the clock plus a 15 yard penalty for a USC. Problem solved wihtout creating a big scene.