N. Carolina/Tennessee

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

But why should players and officials but put into frantic end-half and end-game situations where mistakes from both groups are inevitable? The rules should keep end-half and end-game situations orderly. CFL timing rules do that. NCAA and NFL timing rules do not.

I disagree with that. You may like the CFL rules on timing, but I cannot stand to watch most of that game for all other kinds of rules. It is about style and how you want to govern behavior on the field. I have no problem with the timing rules in either league and comparing an amateur level to a pro level where things are purposely done to keep things in check is kind of silly anyway. There are reasons each level has different set of rules because of what the participants will do and try to get advantages. I do not see this as being a major advantage as I am reading this or something common. But then again I did not see the game in question or the situation so I will have to take your word for what happened.

Peace

[Steven Tyler]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

Doesn't matter what game it happened in. The rules in place would have handled the situation properly if they had been enforced properly. If the North Carolina kicker can make it from 49 instead of 39, they still play OT.

But why should players and officials but put into frantic end-half and end-game situations where mistakes from both groups are inevitable? The rules should keep end-half and end-game situations orderly. CFL timing rules do that. NCAA and NFL timing rules do not.

In Canada they also like to pop the top on an ice cold Moose Drool or Trout Slayer. You'll get my Miller Lite when you pry it out of my cold, dead hand...

Mistakes happen. In the medical profession they're called "learning experiences".

Suggest you try the hockey forum....

[JRutledge]

Dave Parry and NCAA Rules Committee Chair Connecticut coach Randy Edsall speak up on situation

[Camron Rust]

One thing they didn't mention about the NC/UT situation is that there were 12 men in formation in addtion to the extra substitutes that were running off the field.

There were 2 down linemen to the left of the center, the center, 3 down linemen to the right of the center. One tightend on the right end, two receivers on the left side, the QB, a holder, and a kicker. (Plus the 5 or so players still on the field but trying to leave)

If I understand the NCAA rules correctly, it seems that should have made it a 15 yard penalty (Rule 9-1-5b, illegal participation). rather than 5 (illegal substitution).

10 yards further back and maybe UNC misses the FG.

UT made a number of errors down the stretch but UT got a raw deal in this one any way you slice it....whether by UNC being able to kill the clock at the cost of a penalty (bet that rule changes before next year) or by not getting the correct penalty (15 vs. 5).

(And, no, I'm certainly NOT a UT fan).

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

One thing they didn't mention about the NC/UT situation is that there were 12 men in formation in addtion to the extra substitutes that were running off the field.

There were 2 down linemen to the left of the center, the center, 3 down linemen to the right of the center. One tightend on the right end, two receivers on the left side, the QB, a holder, and a kicker. (Plus the 5 or so players still on the field but trying to leave)

If I understand the NCAA rules correctly, it seems that should have made it a 15 yard penalty (Rule 9-1-5b, illegal participation). rather than 5 (illegal substitution).

10 yards further back and maybe UNC misses the FG.

UT made a number of errors down the stretch but UT got a raw deal in this one any way you slice it....whether by UNC being able to kill the clock at the cost of a penalty (bet that rule changes before next year) or by not getting the correct penalty (15 vs. 5).

(And, no, I'm certainly NOT a UT fan).

They got it correct as there is a live ball substitution foul in the rules at the NCAA level and NF level. They only can be an IP foul if they participate or influence the play. Players running off the field are considered players that have not completed a proper substitution within the proper time.

Peace

[TXMike]

There actually were 12 set in the formation, not even counting the mass of players trying to run back off the field. In the chaos I doubt the U or R had a chance to count them.

[Camron Rust]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

They got it correct as there is a live ball substitution foul in the rules at the NCAA level and NF level. They only can be an IP foul if they participate or influence the play. Players running off the field are considered players that have not completed a proper substitution within the proper time.

Peace

Did you even read my post?

There were 12 set in position ready to run a play in addition to all those running off. I detailed where they were and who they were. There were two fouls on that play...Illegal Substitution and Illegal Participation. They missed 12 in the play. But, the replay official SHOULD have seen that...but didn't.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Camron Rust

Did you even read my post?

There were 12 set in position ready to run a play in addition to all those running off. I detailed where they were and who they were. There were two fouls on that play...Illegal Substitution and Illegal Participation. They missed 12 in the play. But, the replay official SHOULD have seen that...but didn't.

I read what you said, but you seem to not understand the idiosyncrasies of the rules on this situation. It is only participation when they participate or if they influence the play. I am admitting I did not see the call, just stating what the rules are and how it could have been called. It may have been wrong and I am not sure the replay can review this like the NFL. Unless you can show me a rule, the replay official is not involved. I am familiar with NCAA rules, but I admit I know little about all review rules as I have never worked a game under those circumstances.

Peace

[TXMike]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I read what you said, but you seem to not understand the idiosyncrasies of the rules on this situation. It is only participation when they participate or if they influence the play. I am admitting I did not see the call, just stating what the rules are and how it could have been called. It may have been wrong and I am not sure the replay can review this like the NFL. Unless you can show me a rule, the replay official is not involved. I am familiar with NCAA rules, but I admit I know little about all review rules as I have never worked a game under those circumstances.

Peace

Being set in a formation at the snap IS participation I believe. That being said, the play that was "run" with extra players was a spike so not sure there was any advantage to Team A by having the 12, 2 of whom were way behind the QB.

It is reviewable (12-3-5-a)

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Being set in a formation at the snap IS participation I believe. That being said, the play that was "run" with extra players was a spike so not sure there was any advantage to Team A by having the 12, 2 of whom were way behind the QB.

It is reviewable (12-3-5-a)

Thanks for the explanation. I am away from my football rulebooks right now, can they change the call that was made on the field? In other words if the crew called IS, could the review make it IP?

Peace

[TXMike]

Rulebook is not going to help you answer that. It is not specific enough. Some conferences IR manuals say the booth cannot change a IS call to IP but others are silent. The issue as I see it is not changing the IS call because that foul existed also. It is adding an additional foul (IP) that was not seen and on that issue, IR definitely can step in.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by TXMike

Rulebook is not going to help you answer that. It is not specific enough. Some conferences IR manuals say the booth cannit change a IS call to IP but others are silent. The issue as I see it is not changing the IS call as that foul existed also. It is adding an additional foul (IP) that was not seen and on that issue, IR definitely can step in.

I know some people in the Big Ten and I will find out for sure what is the case. I may or may not report what I find out but I did work for a TA in the Big Ten that is retiring and I am sure something will be mentioned in our next meetings or over the spring.

Peace

[RealityCheck]

North Carolina committed at least three live-ball fouls on this play...

1) Illegal procedure for having 5 men lined up in the backfield.
2) Illegal substitution for having 5 extra players leaving the field obviously not participating in the play at the snap.
3) Illegal participation for having 12 players on the field in formation and not attempting to leave the field at the snap.

Obviously the illegal participation foul would have been elected to be enforced by Tennessee if it had been given the option.

A.R. 9-1-5 provides the basis for why illegal participation and not illegal substitution was the correct call....

Approved Ruling 9-1-5

I. Team A, with 12 men on the field of play, snaps at its 40-yard line and throws a complete or incomplete forward pass. RULING: Illegal participation. Penalty--15 yards from the previous spot.

VII. At the end of third down, Team B sends in its kick-return team. The responsible officials count the Team B players and it appears that Team B has 12 players on the field of play. While the officials are attempting to recount the players, the ball is snapped. At the end of the down, the officials recount the Team B players and are positive that Team B had 12 players participate during the down. RULING: Illegal participation on Team B. Penalty--15 yards from the previous spot. (Note: If the officials are not positive that a team has violated Rule 3-5-2-c, they should not sound their whistles and penalize the team five yards for a substitution violation.)

The officials were obviously not positive that North Carolina had 12 players in its offensive formation at the snap on this spike play, and there were obviously 12 players on the field at the end of the play. The illegal participation call was cut and dried, and it should have been made by the replay official since the field officials missed it.

If North Carolina had played with 11 players in formation and not five in the backfield, then the illegal substitution call for the extra players leaving the field at the snap would have been the correct call as the only foul on the play. But illegal participation and illegal substitution were both live-ball fouls. Any conference manuals that state that a replay offcial cannot review this live-ball situation would seem to be in violation of both A.R. 9-1-5 and Rule 12-3-5-a. The replay official has the power to review the illegal participation under 12-3-5-a, "The number of players participating by either team during a live ball."

I think much of the confusion is that two different parts of the illegal substitution rule are in play here. What the replay official could not review would be the dead-ball foul for having 12 players on the field prior to the snap. The live-ball illegal substitution foul that was called was for having players in excess of 11 leaving the field while the ball is in play. The live-ball illegal substitution foul doesn't cancel out illegal participation if 12 players remain on the field, while you can't have illegal participation when a dead-ball illegal substitution foul is called.

If the illegal substitution had been a dead-ball foul, more than one second would have been the correct time to put on the clock.

[bisonlj]

Originally Posted by RealityCheck

North Carolina committed at least three live-ball fouls on this play...

1) Illegal procedure for having 5 men lined up in the backfield.
2) Illegal substitution for having 5 extra players leaving the field obviously not participating in the play at the snap.
3) Illegal participation for having 12 players on the field in formation and not attempting to leave the field at the snap.

Obviously the illegal participation foul would have been elected to be enforced by Tennessee if it had been given the option.

A.R. 9-1-5 provides the basis for why illegal participation and not illegal substitution was the correct call....

Approved Ruling 9-1-5

I. Team A, with 12 men on the field of play, snaps at its 40-yard line and throws a complete or incomplete forward pass. RULING: Illegal participation. Penalty--15 yards from the previous spot.

VII. At the end of third down, Team B sends in its kick-return team. The responsible officials count the Team B players and it appears that Team B has 12 players on the field of play. While the officials are attempting to recount the players, the ball is snapped. At the end of the down, the officials recount the Team B players and are positive that Team B had 12 players participate during the down. RULING: Illegal participation on Team B. Penalty--15 yards from the previous spot. (Note: If the officials are not positive that a team has violated Rule 3-5-2-c, they should not sound their whistles and penalize the team five yards for a substitution violation.)

The officials were obviously not positive that North Carolina had 12 players in its offensive formation at the snap on this spike play, and there were obviously 12 players on the field at the end of the play. The illegal participation call was cut and dried, and it should have been made by the replay official since the field officials missed it.

If North Carolina had played with 11 players in formation and not five in the backfield, then the illegal substitution call for the extra players leaving the field at the snap would have been the correct call as the only foul on the play. But illegal participation and illegal substitution were both live-ball fouls. Any conference manuals that state that a replay offcial cannot review this live-ball situation would seem to be in violation of both A.R. 9-1-5 and Rule 12-3-5-a. The replay official has the power to review the illegal participation under 12-3-5-a, "The number of players participating by either team during a live ball."

I think much of the confusion is that two different parts of the illegal substitution rule are in play here. What the replay official could not review would be the dead-ball foul for having 12 players on the field prior to the snap. The live-ball illegal substitution foul that was called was for having players in excess of 11 leaving the field while the ball is in play. The live-ball illegal substitution foul doesn't cancel out illegal participation if 12 players remain on the field, while you can't have illegal participation when a dead-ball illegal substitution foul is called.

If the illegal substitution had been a dead-ball foul, more than one second would have been the correct time to put on the clock.

You unfortunately lost a lot of credibility using the term "illegal procedure" at the beginning of this post. There is no such foul in any rule book and only exists in the words of announcers. This would be an illegal formation. You are correct though that they could have had an illegal formation with 5 players in the backfield.

Your AR play for illegal participation doesn't fit completely because that is assuming there was a play involving all 12 players (a scrimmage kick). In this play, the extra players did not actually participate. Just because they were on the field at the snap does mean they participated. I think you can support an IP call if it had been called but I think the appropriate call in this case was illegal substitution. There is the letter of the rules and the spirit and philosophy of the rules.

[RealityCheck]

NCAA officials signal 19 is listed with the National Federation description "Illegal procedure" as recently as the 2004 NCAA Football Rules. It is a valid general term for the various infractions enforced using signal 19.

There was no "could have had an illegal formation" because North Carolina in fact did have 5 players lined up in the backfield on the play in question. Off the line of scrimmage it had a wide receiver left, a slot receiver right, the quarterback, a holder, and a kicker. That issue is a red herring here though regarding illegal participation/substitution.

There were 17 North Carolina players on the field when the ball was snapped. Five of those players were attempting to leave the field before the ball was snapped, and all of those five were outside the numbers at the snap and when the ball was spiked. That is the live-ball illegal substitution foul that was called.

There were still 12 North Carolina players who were in the offensive formation between the numbers and not attempting to leave the field at the completion of the spike to stop the clock. Those 12 players all participated in that down...that is covered by the definition of "player" in Rule 2-27-6.

I listed the A.R. 9-1-5 articles since they are on point as to when illegal participation can be determined, and the exact play situation in A.R. 9-1-5-VII is not relevant. The play situation in A.R. 9-1-5-I covers exactly what occured on this play regarding participation...12 players on the field for a complete or incomplete forward pass. The pre-snap determination of illegal substitution for more than 11 players on the field was not made on this play as covered in A.R. 9-1-5-VII. That illegal substitution foul if called would have been enforced as a dead-ball foul, and more than one second would have been put back on the clock. Since that dead-ball foul call was not made, officials are still obligated to determine if more than 11 players participated in the down that was completed with the spike to stop the clock under the enforcement principle covered in A.R. 9-1-5-VII.

Both the live-ball illegal substitution foul for excess players leaving the field and illegal participation for 12 players participating in the play should have been reported on this play. Tennessee should have had the option to decline illegal formation, decline illegal substitution, and accept illegal participation. That is what the letter, spirit, and philosophy of the rules require.