End of Wisconsin - Arizona State game

[hbk314]

Originally Posted by Adam

What consequence? It was a loose ball, and the ASU player reasonably thought it was a fumble. What punishment do you suggest? There's no rule that allows the clock to be stopped if this wasn't an actual fumble, though, so I'm honestly not sure what the officials should have done.

Seven seconds is well beyond a reasonable amount of time to release the ball. Should have been a defensive delay of game penalty.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Seven seconds is well beyond a reasonable amount of time to release the ball. Should have been a defensive delay of game penalty.

And all caused by the stupid actions of Wisconsin and their QB.

Peace

Let's remember that opinions on the "stupidity" of this play (or the OP being a "fanboy") should be irrelevant to the discussion of the officiating of this play.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Let's remember that opinions on the "stupidity" of this play (or the OP being a "fanboy") should be irrelevant to the discussion of the officiating of this play.

You have not been here very long have you?

Peace

[bigjohn]

Let's Be Clear About the End of the UW-ASU Game - Off Tackle Empire


http://www.offtackleempire.com/2013/...hdown-seahawks

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by bigjohn

Let's Be Clear About the End of the UW-ASU Game - Off Tackle Empire

I still can't look at video from this computer, but if the description and series of stills at the link above is anything other than out-and-out lies, the umpire threw the game to team B. Clearly the action by the player who had taken a knee with the ball was to try to get the ball readied for play sooner. Here, I'm spotting it for you. So don't blame him, that's about the most cooperative you could ever expect the ballcarrier to be when the whistle blows. (My players always want to take the ball into the huddle with them!) How could he possibly anticipate the officials would then allow the other team to futz around with the ball, and leave the clock running while doing so?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Let's remember that opinions on the "stupidity" of this play (or the OP being a "fanboy") should be irrelevant to the discussion of the officiating of this play.

Disagree, in so far as the stupidity of the play has an effect on how the officials can be expected to respond.

Originally Posted by Adam

Disagree, in so far as the stupidity of the play has an effect on how the officials can be expected to respond.

Shouldn't officials be prepared to officiate any play that comes up in their games, regardless of how "stupid" they think it is?

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Shouldn't officials be prepared to officiate any play that comes up in their games, regardless of how "stupid" they think it is?

I think you are missing the point. The team that wants the officials to put the ball in play quickly, does something that caused confusion. If the Wisconsin player wanted to take a knee, hold on to the damn football so that you can give it to the nearest official. Then no one thinks there is a fumble. No one can take the ball away from being put in play. This is why teams in the hurry up style are now getting tackled and instead of celebrating or doing something silly, they take the football to the nearest official. Why? Because they want the ball put back in play ASAP. What the QB should have done is hand the ball to the Umpire, instead of setting it down where anything could have happened to it. And this has been taught for years in hurry up situations long before the Spread or Oregon played this fast paced offense. So when you set the ball down where and official has run and get the ball behind your lineman, yes that was stupid. It is stupid because they are the ones that wanted the ball to be put in play quickly and when you would not do that any other time in that situation and now complain the ball was not put back in play.

Peace

[bigjohn]

What is it everyone tells me, still photos are worthless!!!!

[Robert Goodman]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think you are missing the point. The team that wants the officials to put the ball in play quickly, does something that caused confusion. If the Wisconsin player wanted to take a knee, hold on to the damn football so that you can give it to the nearest official. Then no one thinks there is a fumble. No one can take the ball away from being put in play. This is why teams in the hurry up style are now getting tackled and instead of celebrating or doing something silly, they take the football to the nearest official. Why? Because they want the ball put back in play ASAP. What the QB should have done is hand the ball to the Umpire, instead of setting it down where anything could have happened to it. And this has been taught for years in hurry up situations long before the Spread or Oregon played this fast paced offense.

News to me. When you stand up holding the ball, players tend to think it's still live. Why is it any clearer than leaving the ball on the ground, which is what officials have asked players to do since 1905?

[MD Longhorn]

Originally Posted by AremRed

Shouldn't officials be prepared to officiate any play that comes up in their games, regardless of how "stupid" they think it is?

Yes.

[hbk314]

The Pac-12 reprimands officials from Arizona State-Wisconsin game - CBSSports.com

[Adam]

Originally Posted by hbk314

Seven seconds is well beyond a reasonable amount of time to release the ball. Should have been a defensive delay of game penalty.

This is where the relevance of whether you (or I) have ever worked FBS football comes into play. Given that there may have been confusion on the part of the ASU players whether it was a fumble (there seems to have been confusion from the umpire), I highly doubt NCAA supervisors want a flag on that.

But again, I don't work that level of football, and I have no access to the instructions they've been given on when to throw the DOG flag for this action and when they're supposed to give the player the benefit of the doubt.