Illegal substitution to ice the kicker

[maven]

Originally Posted by HLin NC

The FG attempt was just before halftime. Even with the 5 yd penalty, Duke missed the second attempt. Cutcliffe was interviewed as the teams left the field and he said it was an unsporting way to ice the kicker. That got the discussion started.

Probably true but under our new Schiano Method of "all's fair in love and war", smart move by Cincy.

The only remedy I can think of would be the nuclear option of treating this as an unfair act and penalizing the offending team 15 rather than 5 (or, the global thermonuclear option of awarding a score). If one crew did that, coaches might not think it's such a clever tactic.

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by maven

The only remedy I can think of would be the nuclear option of treating this as an unfair act and penalizing the offending team 15 rather than 5 (or, the global thermonuclear option of awarding a score).

But to be consistent you'd have to do the same with the other ways B could intentionally foul to prevent play.

It is an unfair act when A is trying to get off a quick play and B does something illegal to prevent it, especially if it looked like the quick play would've gone for a TD (such as if team A had a huge numbers advantage at the point of attack, or an uncovered receiver). I presented such a scenario decades ago to the sec'y of NCAA's rules committee and he thought it'd be good only for USC, not equitable penalty.

[JasonTX]

I would have rather them let this be a live ball illegal participation. I suspect the snap could have taken place during a recount of the players. In NCAA both Illegal Substitution and Illegal Participation are 5 yard penalties.

[Scooby]

Would we be having this discussion if Duke would have missed the first field goal and made the second? Cincinnati gave Duke an opportunity to try the field goal 5 yards closer. Duke missed.

And if you believe that the rule should be changed in this situation do you believe that if a defender is beat by a wideout and tackles him while the ball is in the air, saving a touchdown, should there be a greater penalty? the defense is benefiting from a foul. In high school it is only a 15 yard penalty and a 1st down.

[maven]

As I think more about this issue, it's not clear to me that the advantage gained is unfair. When a team takes a time out to ice a kicker, it costs them something (the time out). In this case, they fouled, which also cost them something, namely yardage. Why is that less fair than taking the time out?

As for fixing the rules: one at a time. Rome wasn't built in a day.

[HLin NC]

I guess its perceived to be unfair because on the subsequent attempt, K missed. However, as you correctly stated, K gained yardage on the penalty. They could have opted to attempt an offensive play, (not likely on this specific play), scoring a TD instead. Would people wonder if the penalty is unfair to R because otherwise they only gave up 3 points in that instance?

Some folks here occasionally point out what they think of as flaws or inequities in the rules. Much like loss of down is accurately the loss of the right to repeat the down, the offended team has the right to repeat the down. It is still their responsibility to complete their play successfully. Otherwise the rule code would just authorize just handing them points, which I guess the thermonuclear option would allow. I just doubt that crew would ever be working CFB again afterward if the did.

[Rich]

The first kick never happened, since the kicker kicked a dead ball.

[Tom.OH]

Originally Posted by Scooby

Would we be having this discussion if Duke would have missed the first field goal and made the second? Cincinnati gave Duke an opportunity to try the field goal 5 yards closer. Duke missed.

And if you believe that the rule should be changed in this situation do you believe that if a defender is beat by a wideout and tackles him while the ball is in the air, saving a touchdown, should there be a greater penalty? the defense is benefiting from a foul. In high school it is only a 15 yard penalty and a 1st down.

Unless you call intentional DPI and make it a "30" yard penalty.

[JasonLJ]

One could also argue that the kicker gains an advantage by kicking it... He can see the flight of the ball and perhaps adjust for wind, footing, etc.

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by Tom.OH

Unless you call intentional DPI and make it a "30" yard penalty.

Which has never been called in the history of forever.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by MD Longhorn

Which has never been called in the history of forever.

I do not think I have ever seen a situation where I think that would be warranted in any way.

Peace

[CT1]

Originally Posted by Scooby

Would we be having this discussion if Duke would have missed the first field goal and made the second?

Of course not. It's just something else for the common-taters to get their BVDs in a knot about.

How many teams would even *think* about taking a penalty to ice the kicker on a 50+yd FG attempt? The odds for success are not great in the first place.