wisconsin vs penn state - USC?
 

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.

Apparently Paterno thought the same thing. Maybe this will help get the rule cleaned up in the offseason. Penn State did not have to permit a rekick. They could have taken the ball after the 1st kick and had a 5 yarder enforced from where the return ended. (They had a return didn't they?)

I've had that question asked. I would start the clock on the snap if there were repeated penalties. It's hard to judge intent sometimes, but I would reserve this option.

But as TXMike says, PSU did not have to accept the foul for a rekick, they could accept a 5-yard markoff from the end of the run. That rule change came in just a couple of years ago and has nothing to do with the timing change this year.
The clock was going to start on the RFP anyhow, so why waste it on a rekick when you could be snapping the ball.

I think the point that i was trying to make earlier is that Wisconsin apparently gets an advantage by being able to run off the clock twice in the situation they were in. Why should Penn be effectively penalized for loss of time due to what, in my opinion were tactics that could and should be considered unsportsmanlike on the part of Wisconsin.

The rule to start the clock on the kick was intended to speed up the game, not to be used for unethical purposes.

Just my opinion. Hope they figure this one out in the off-season.

How can you judge they "deliberately" went offside on the KO?

Initially it was reported that that the rule this year would be that inside the last 2 minutes of a half the clock would not start on KO's until ball was legally touched after the kick. However, that is not what it actually ended up being. It would be easy to put that little change in if they choose to do so.

Your point is well taken - it's very difficult to judge whether a team is guilty of USC in this situation. However when a nationally ranked team, has all players but one go offsides twice in a row - methinks something is rotten in Denmark. One could argue that it is possible for it to happen, one can also argue that bumblebees can't logically fly either.

Unsportsman-like Conduct will become one of the most difficult rules to apply in the future. And one of the most important rules if we are to keep football a sport that follows a defined code of ethics.

I would say that the fault (if one can call it a fault - I do) lies primarily with the coaches. Again this is not an instance of one individual breaking a rule or crossing a line. Here we have one or more coaches that have willingly and knowingly coached their players to (again this is my opinion) break the rules to gain an unfair advantage.

That's the problem with rules designed for TV. Not for the game of football. People always stretch rules or find loopholes or test limits, however you want to say it. I don't think it USC, just testing the limits. I think it was a very smart play by Wisconsin, and shows the stupidity of make rules for TV. But I guess just like everthing $'s rule. TMO

TXMike, the 2nd time they did it, I am interpreting it to be deliberate. If a team has 2 FStarts within the last 5 seconds of the play clock, in the last 2 mintues of the game are you going to start the clock on the RFP the 2nd time? I'm sure you are, and the rules support us in doing so.

The second time they did this, I think the official has the opportunity, within the rules, to set the clock back to the time it was before the KO, and start the clock on the snap. I'd be VERY suprised if the NCAA does not make some allowances for this next year. They, more than the NF, seem to take care of these types of things pretty quickly. Pretty easy change, something like this... "after a 2nd consecutive offisides on the kicking team, team R can take the ball 5 yards from the DB spot and the clock will be reset to the time it was before the kick."

North Dakota State University did the same thing that afternoon in their game also. They did it at the end of the game though after just taking the lead. They were about 10 yards downfield before the ball was kicked. By the time the returner fielded the kick he was pretty much surrounded and easily tackled. During the kick, time ran out and on the next play, it was basically just an onside squiber to one of the up men, easily covered basically giving Cal Davis no chance to win the game with either a return or a quick recovery, fair catch and then a hail mary.

Great morals being taught by that coach.

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.

Video Clip
 

To address a later post, you can probably deduce it was deliberately offsides when 10 guys (all but the kicker of course) are out to the 40 or so when the ball is kicked. And, yes, they did have a return, but they only got it out to about the 12 yrd line or so since, as noted, all the defenders got such a large head start by being so far offsides when the ball was kicked. This was not, of course, the difference in the game...it just irritates me when a team so blatently cheats.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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."

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.

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!!!

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.

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.

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?

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

Canadian Ruling
 

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.

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.

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!

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.

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?

"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.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

it seems there is universal agreement that the rule needs to be changed and also universal agreement that it will be.

Now I know the NCAA Rules Committee, in their infinite wisdom, will leave it the same! (or make it worse).

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.

Wow! You almost convinced me that you are right when you used the [B]bold[B] and ALL CAPS...but I have a few more questions.

In the Fed rulebook I was unable to find a definition of flagrant. Am I wrong? What about NCAA, is it defined?

In every case that I could find in the fed, a flagrant foul resulted in an ejection. Should the coach be ejected in your opinion?

Here's the problem... the statement from the NCAA was, ""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." Unfortunately, this unfair act IS specifically covered by the rules - offsides is a 5-yard penalty. There is no wisdom from the NCAA (in case play or rulebook) telling us that 10 5-yarders on the same play should be a 15-yarder and a fixing of the clock.

It may be common sense to your or me, sitting here on our computers. But how many of us would have risked our lucrative college officiating careers essentially making up a solution on the fly and HOPING it coincided with the opinions of our superiors?

The answer is - Not Many.

And the fault lies in the rulesmakers who changed this rule without much peer review, or even simply reading here, where a number of us pointed out this specific problem with the rule.

No - a flagrant PERSONAL foul is an ejection. "Flagrant" is a simple word found in any dictionary. If you don't find this situation a "flagrant" foul, I question your judgement. My problem with the whole thing is that this flagrant misuse of a rule was FORSEEABLE, yet the NCAA did not forsee it. They sent out memos with excruciating detail regarding exactly when to start the clock on the snap instead of the RFP ... but couldn't forsee THIS scenario, when everyone here (and at Griffs) could and did forsee EXACTLY this.