N. Carolina/Tennessee
 

Wow.... very interesting end to regulation.

Yes very crazy...just curious in the NFL dont they have a runoff on a off penalty under the 2 min warning?

I'm not an NCAA football official, but why wasn't the illegal participation penalty a 15-yard penalty? That clearly wasn't substitution, but was participation. Or that's sure what it looked like.

That was bananas. I think the crew handled it well, though.

I also thought it was a good no-call on the previous play. The announcers were pining for a late hit, but, to me, it looked like the defender was blocked into the receiver.

Agreed, good no call. I'm a Carolina fan but also a Vol fan from living in Tennessee for 8 years. Great game!

No player in excess of 11 shall leave the field of play while the ball is live. This is a live ball foul for illegal SUBSTITUTION. They would actually have to participate in the play to be flagged for participation.

There were 12 players still in the formation after all of the other players were leaving the field when the ball was spiked.

Illegal participation trumps illegal substitution. The FG attempt was from 10 yards closer than it should have been.

Anyone who thinks that crew/replay booth did a good job at the end of the game is mistaken big-time.

What about the throat slash by the Tennessee quarterback after the touchdown in the first overtime? Is that indicative of a lack of control by the coach?

One more aspect I have not seen addressed (I am a NFHS official only), but is there not a rule concerning substitutions that when A attempts to sub, that they must be held up until B has a chance to counter the sub. Perhaps that is waived in the final two minutes or something like that.

NC coaching staff got away with a serious blunder by sending in the FG unit on 3rd down and creating the confusion. They would have easily been able to spike the ball had just the same players stayed in the game.

Can you post a copy of the video. I didn't see 12 players participating. I was just posting the rule regarding the players departing the field at the snap is a live ball sub. foul. If in fact 12 players were in the formation then that would be a participation foul.

I don't have a way to post video. I will try to post images from the espn3 stream.

I counted only 11 at first excluding the players leaving because there was a holder with no kicker. The kicker was just out of frame even on widescreen 4 yards behind the holder. When the picture pulls back after the spike then you can see 12 players still on the field.

There were 12 in the formation but were they really "participating" in the play when all the play was was a spike?

If they were lined up, they participated. Doesn't matter what type of play was run.

I just checked the highlight in HD and there were definitely 12 players in the formation!

I am guessing this should have been a 49 FG attempt instead of a 39 yard attempt.

I just made a screen capture with the ball still in the QB's hands....12 UNC players between the numbers. No doubt it was illegal participation.

6 players in 3-point stance on the line and a wideout on the left side on the line to make 7 on the line of scrimmage.
Another wideout off the line on the left and a slot on the right. QB under center with the holder and kicker deep...5 in the backfield makes 12....this isn't the CFL or CIAU.

Wish I had a way to post the screencap.

I live in NC but have been a Tennessee fan since I was a kid. All 4 teams appeared to blunder at the end. Poor discipline by UT, bizaare play call and clock mgt. by UNC and the crew seemed disjointed. Davie kept referring to USC's as PF's. Of course this is the same announcer guy that referred to the Clausen brothers as CLOW-son in the past so its to be expected.

Not sure about the PF on the pass completion as I'm Fed. Did the launch have anything to do with it because the hit looked like it was with the shoulder by the UT DB? It was a good no call on the one where Davie was complaining about the late hit as A49 gave B42 a little shove at the end.

Since this was a Big 10 crew, I expected much better mic work by the WH. He lacked polish in his delivery. It was almost like he just got moved to R. He stammered and stumbled on just about every announcement.

UT deserved to lose given their play in the last 1:35.

The head lineman threw the flag for illegal subsitution because there were four Tar Heels still running off the field when the ball was snapped. I don't think the R or U counted the players in the formation.

I was real disappointed the UT Qb wasn't flagged for the double throat slash he gave to the Carolina sideline. Somebody's gotta see that and make the call.

True, but justice was served in the 2nd OT with the pick.

Really interesting discussion about the participation v. formation question.

After the game, the Tennessee coach was making the point that the NFL has a 10 second run off for this situation, but I'm not sure he was right. I think the NFL rule only applies to motion penalties, but not formation. (I'm not sure about participation.)

Anyway, this got me to thinking about a question for these sorts of end of game situations. If you're ok with a 5 yard penalty and out of time outs, why go through the effort of lining up in a regular formation at all? Suppose you make a play down the field with very little time left that doesn't stop the clock? (Maybe it was a 1st and 20 and you only get 18 or something.) Rather than running your linemen all the way to the line, just coach them to stand still. The player who had the ball can just run up to the spotted ball and snap it to another player -- say, a receiver who is also downfield with him to clock the ball.

So long as everyone is still, would this work or be anything other than a formation penalty? Even if everyone is not still, it's still only 5 yarder, right? (Although in the NFL, you have the 10 second run off.) Could save 10 seconds or so. I always see teams in the situation run the line and get everyone set before they snap and clock -- even after a first down where the clock stops until the ready signal, they lose several seconds. Why bother if you're ok with 5 yards?

Because there is a rule that if you intentionally conserve or consume time illegally the R has the authority to rule the clock started or stopped. He could enforce the penalty and start the clock again immediately. It still may work to the benefit of the offense in your scenario but not as well as you think.

Many of used to go with that "refere's discretion" on the clock. However, a 2009 bulletin removed that discretion with this play:

7. Third and seven at the B-35. The game clock is running late in the first half of a tie game. (a) The quarterback spikes the ball as soon as he receives the direct snap, and Team A is flagged for an illegal shift because not all eleven players stopped for a full second before the snap. When the ball becomes dead the game clock is stopped at 0:09. (b) A79 commits a false start and the officials correctly shut down the play, stopping the game clock, which reads 0:09.
RULING: (a) Team B will likely decline the penalty and accept the result of the play, which brings up fourth down. Regardless of Team B’s decision about the penalty, the game clock starts on the snap due to the incomplete pass. (b) Team B will likely accept the penalty since the next play will be third down whether the penalty is accepted or declined. Regardless of Team B’s decision about the penalty, the clock starts on the ready-for-play signal because it was stopped only to complete the penalty. (3-3-2-d-4, 3-3-2-e-4, AR 7-3-2-VIII)

This is BS and we need a rule change to clean this up

If no one on the field counted the UNC players in formation, then the replay booth should have. That was a 15-yard illegal participation foul without question.

Both college and NFL rules create the chaos in end-of-half situations, and both sets of rules are bad. Both players and officials are being put into bad situations because of the current rules. I believe CFL timing rules should be adopted to eliminate the end of game chaos, and this would allow the NFL to get rid of the artificial 10-second runoff.

1) Game clock automatically stops at the end of every play until the ready for play in the last three minutes.
2) If the ball is marked ready for play with time still on the clock, you must RUN THE PLAY even after the clock hits 0:00. This rule would also be in place at the end of the 1st and 3rd quarters. Sick of seeing NFL coaches waving at each other and hitting the locker room with 25 seconds still on the clock when the other team has no timeouts left. College football is getting just as bad.
3) Play clock should be at 25 (it is always 20 in the CFL) in the last three minutes which starts at the ready for play. Tired of seeing 1-score games out of reach with over 2:00 left.
4) Delay of game in the last three minutes should be loss of down on 1st-3rd downs and a 10-yard penalty on 4th down with the clock starting at the snap.
5) Team timeouts per half should be reduced from three to two (you only get one in the CFL).

I think 3-4-3 should have been applied.

Snapping a ball that shouldn't even have been snappable (since B had not had the opportunity to counter A's subs) seems to fall into the category of "tactics obviously unfair."

That rule is never enforced in end-of-half situations since it would be unfair to the defense stop the clock and unfair to the offense to allow time to run out. Just points out more that there are too many loopholes in the current rules structure...too many to repair.

Adopting CFL timing rules and maybe even substitution rules...no subs allowed after the officials signal the gates closed just after the ready for play with arms outstretched...is the best answer. Tinkering with the current flawed NCAA and NFL rules will only make the situation worse.

Play was handled correctly.

NCAA officials chief backs calls in Pinstripe, Music City Bowls - Campus Rivalry: College Football & Basketball News, Recruiting, Game Picks, and More - USATODAY.com

Not surprising considering the biased source. Can't admit that the UNC-Tennessee crew screwed up and that the excessive celebration calls/non-calls in the two Big Ten crew games were absolutely inconsistent.

Probably most posters on this board are more qualified to be the NCAA officials chief and Big Ten officiating supervisor than David Parry is. He has NO credibility.

I agree that the U should have came up over the ball to prevent the snap. If they snap before we are able to get up to the ball to prevent the snap we are supposed to shut it down and have a "do over" to allow B to matchup. But then Team A would still line up and get a play either. Regardless this play will be one talked about next year and will become an education tool to make us all better. That is what we are all trying to do regardless of the level we work.

As for 3-4-3: The bulletin that TXMike posted from NCAA shows that the clock status was proper, even though I disagree with it, but it is the way they want it done so in my games I will follow it just as they did in this game.

But if he had supported YOUR point of view he would not be biased? ? ?

Incredible

I have seen Dave Parry suggest suspensions for non-BC$ conference players when similar yet worse hits by BC$ conference players are not considered suspendable. Will the flagrant Tennessee spear on the first reviewed play in the last few seconds draw a suspension? It should, but I'm not going to hold my breath.

One man should not be both the officials coordinator for a conference (Big Ten) and the NCAA officials coordinator at the same time. That is biased on its face when he speaks as the NCAA cooordinator but is defending his Big Ten crews as the conference coordinator without properly reviewing plays in question.

I fully expect a retraction from Parry once he realizes (I'm sure he has no clue now) that there were 12 players in the UNC formation as has been clearly pointed out in this thread. The call would have been correct under current rules with 11 players in the formation, but that is not how the play went down.

I stand by my earlier rules change suggestions.

Well this statement shows just how educated you are. Kind of invalidates everything else. Parry is NOT the Big Ten coordinator

Nothing I posted is invalidated, except that Parry was the Big Ten coordinator for 19 years until far too recently. Parry's Big Ten bias shows through clearly today.

I have no stake in either UNC or Tennessee, but college football suffered two big black eyes yesterday from incorrect and inconsistent Big Ten officiating. That fact remains no matter how much sugar-coating gets applied.

The game will survive just fine. Things far worse than a possible missed call or in 2 inconsequential bowl games have happened and the game has gone on.

Too many recent rules changes have been enacted to the detriment of the sport as result of "missed calls" in "inconsequential" games.

If changes need to be made (and they do) they need to be the right changes and not changes just because of the way the NFL does it.

Examples?

Restarting the game clock after out-of-bounds plays on the ready for play all the way down to the 2:00 mark in each half. Under current rules the clock is restarted and runs even if the OOB play was at 2:01 on the clock.

The OOB restart has always been the CFL rule even before the NFL adopted it. But as has been shown, too many plays have been taken out of college football games using this "speed-up" rule. But to counter that, using CFL rules there would be a 3:00 warning at the end of the first play with less than 3:00 left. Then the clock stop and reduced play clock rules would be in effect.

What missed call in what inconsequential game caused this change?

Television was the driving force for this change, but it also impacts non-televised games as well. Total plays have been reduced by about 10% due to the short-sightedness of the rules committee in bowing to television so it can squeeze more commericial minutes into games.

Some of the changes were also brought about due to the complete inconsistency in starting the play clock under the old 25-second rule. The 40/25 system is an improvement, but I believe 35/20 would be even better. I remember watching an SEC game under the old rule, and a team got a first down with 2:09 left and the defense had no timeouts left...the offense never even had to run the 3rd down play.

Last night's "missed call in what inconsequential game" is already generating calls for the stupid 10-second runoff that doesn't even belong in the NFL. That is what I want to prevent.

No reason to panic and change rules over 1 play. How often do we see situations like last night?

Many of us have talked about plays just like this in hypothetical terms for several years. We knew there would be a day when it would happen, and it did. It happened in an inconsequential game but that does not mean it could not happen in the BCS Championship game. (And now that coaches have seen it play out in technicolor you know they are hard at work figuring out how to exploit this for themselves in the future)

That makes no sense. There is no down to not be replayed as the down never started. I guess you just want to completely skip a down because of a foul.

I think that's an oxymoron. :D

Calm down, Sling Blade. Word on the street is they're going back to one platoon football so a situation like this will never arise again.

Are you happy now? See what you started?

That's exactly how the CFL calls it in "stop time" in the last 3:00 of each half. The right to run the play is lost when the ball isn't snapped in time.

A team shouldn't be rewarded for running time off the clock at the end of a half or game, take a delay penalty, and then still get to run the play over again.

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.

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

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...:cool:

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

Suggest you try the hockey forum....:rolleyes:

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

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.

Did you even read my post? :rolleyes:

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

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

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.

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

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.

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.

I have seen the IP vs IS debate in the last several posts on this board. I cannot buy the argument as to why 12 men in the formation at the snap is not IP, even if it was a spike (frankly, the arguments in favor of IS for this resemble a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling and do not make any sense). I am not a college official, but my four other crew mates on my HS crew are, and I intend to pick their collective brains on this.

I just wish the Parry or the current Big X supervisor of officials address that specific point. All releases I have seen to date involve the clock, but not the potential IP.

Funny thing is that I have absolutely no stake in this as I could care less who won this game, but I do love to discuss rule issues.

Not since the phrase was removed from the book, it isn't.

Being removed from the book, having not so long ago being a proper rulebook term is far from being a term that was never correct.

It hasn't been correct for some time now. Why would someone go to so much trouble to write up such a detailed post, get that one detail wrong, and then argue about it when someone points out that it is incorrect?

I'll remember to use the phrase "force out" in my basketball game tomorrow. It was a correct phrase once. :D

If there was ever a play where one could argue the 12th player did not "participate", it is a spike. But the problem in this play is that there were a kicker AND a holder in formation. That could mean the QB was really the 12th player and he clearly DID participate. I am not sure I have ever seen an IP call against the offense but I have seen several against the defense. And some of those have included plays where not everyone on defense "participated". I am not sure we could ever develop a workable definition of "participates" that could cover all situations. Therefore, aren't we better off going with the simple one of: 12 in the formation, nobody leaving before snap or leaving during live ball = IP?

This is a very severe penalty for sure and you hate to see such a severe penalty for a relatively minor infraction. It was even more severe not that many years ago when the offended team could choose to have it enforced from previous spot or succeeding spot.

The ARs do not seem to imply the 12th player actually has to do anything before the IP flag is justified.

LD used to be the penalty for any failure to snap in time in Canadian football, and it had a certain "use it or lose it" logic. However, that logic fails when you realize team A could always commit a foul preventing the ball from being put in play with a second left on the time count, and loss of down seems much too great a penalty for most such infractions.

However, this whole business of setting up fast to spike the ball is an artifact of a more basic distortion-inducing timing rule: handling timing between downs differently depending on how the ball last became dead. Address that one and you'll be on your way to getting rid of the chaos.

"Illegal procedure" may be a fairly recent removal (6 years ago) but I know any meeting or clinic I go to, a good sign of a guy who is not current is the guy using the term "illegal procedure". Same as the wing who argues he can work better starting on the field rather than the sideline. The game evolves and anyone using the term "illegal procedure" is either a coach, announcer, or an official who is not current.

Oh goodie...let's start that argument again. :D