PDA

View Full Version : Bumblin Stumblin end to Vols/Heels Bowl Game To Drive Rules Changes



Newton_14
01-01-2011, 09:04 AM
The bizarre ending in the Music City Bowl is likely to drive changes to NCAA Football Rules. In case you missed it, the end of regulation in the Tennessee/UNC game was bizarre.

When Tennessee scored their last touchdown to take the lead, the kicker missed the extra point, leaving the Vols with a 3 point lead rather than a 4 point lead. With 17 seconds to go, and no timeouts remaining, UNC, who was already in Field Goal range, chose to call a running play. The play gained about 8 yards, but left little time for them to line up and spike the ball to stop the clock and get the Field Goal unit on the field.

With the clock under 5 seconds, UNC was trying to get lined up to spike it, but confusion on the sidelines had the coaching staff sending in the Field Goal unit. Panic ensued, and they ended up with Yates under center, and behind him, the holder and kicker were lined up for the kick. 3 Linemen on the Field Goal unit were caught trying to get back to the sidelines.

Yates ends up getting the snap with 1 second remaining and spiked it. The ref's initially declared the game over, but after review, put 1 second back on the clock, penalized UNC 5 yards for too many players on the field, and allowed them to kick the tying field goal. UNC went on to win in double OT.

The article below reports that the rules committee supported the decision made by the refs but will likely change the rules when they meet in Feb to prevent this from happening again. UNC obviously ended up benefiting from their own penalty. In the NFL there would have been a 10 Second run off which would have ended the game with Tennessee getting the win. I hope the rules committee follows through on this, as a team should not get rewarded for a penalty in that situation.

Here is the link to the WRAL story. ESPN also has the story up on their site.
http://www.wralsportsfan.com/college_football/story/8862526/

hudlow
01-01-2011, 09:18 AM
...every time any game ends in a cluster, the Tar Heads automatically win.

hud

Devilsfan
01-01-2011, 09:20 AM
Pathetic. The games a reflection on how they riun their program.

sandinmyshoes
01-01-2011, 09:26 AM
There is a widespread misconception about the end of that game. The penalty on UNC in no way "helped" them to win the game. Yates' spike of the ball was a legit action and he did it with one second left. The spike stopped the clock, not the penalty. So UNC was in fact penalized for their infraction by having to kick the FG from five yards further back.

Other people keep complaining about the kicker and holder being on the field. But how is it any different than have a tailback and fullback behind the QB?

I just don't see how anyone can say UT was robbed. The officiating crew was a bumbling bunch, but the review crew put them right.

Newton_14
01-01-2011, 09:37 AM
There is a widespread misperception about the end of that game. The penalty on UNC in no way "helped" them to win the game. Yates' spike of the ball was a legit action and he did it with one second left. The spike stopped the clock, not the penalty. So UNC was in fact penalized for their infraction.

Other people keep complaining about the kicker and holder being on the field. But how is it any different than have a tailback and fullback behind the QB?

I just don't see how anyone can say UT was robbed. The officiating crew was a bumbling bunch, but the review crew put them right.

I agree UNC won the game fair and square based on the current rules, but the rules need to change. That was terrible clock management on the part of UNC, and in my opinion they deserved to lose. They were well within Barth's range and did not need the risky play they called.

While Yates did get the snap in time, the problem is that UNC was not in a legal formation and had too many players on the field with multiple players in motion. The NFL rule with the 10 Second runoff penalizes a team in that situation as they should. Had UNC simply kept their offensive team on the field, lined up in a legal formation, and gotten the snap off, then all would be good. But like I said, under current rules it was the right call. I just feel the NFL rule is fairer to the defensive team in a situation like that.

Dr. Rosenrosen
01-01-2011, 09:43 AM
A simple extra point and this whole thing becomes a moot point. Odd ending and hate to see the holes win anything but the Vols have only themselves to blame.

sandinmyshoes
01-01-2011, 09:44 AM
I agree UNC won the game fair and square based on the current rules, but the rules need to change. That was terrible clock management on the part of UNC, and in my opinion they deserved to lose. They were well within Barth's range and did not need the risky play they called.

While Yates did get the snap in time, the problem is that UNC was not in a legal formation and had too many players on the field with multiple players in motion. The NFL rule with the 10 Second runoff penalizes a team in that situation as they should. Had UNC simply kept their offensive team on the field, lined up in a legal formation, and gotten the snap off, then all would be good. But like I said, under current rules it was the right call. I just feel the NFL rule is fairer to the defensive team in a situation like that.

Here's my issue though. What difference did it make that they were not in a legal formation? It didn't affect the length of the game. Why should a team be penalized more at the end of a game than at any other time? UNC gained nothing with that penalty. It's not like their kicker missed and got to try over again.

Yates spiked the ball, killing the clock with a second left. UNC was then moved further back for having too man men on the field. So UNC gained nothing because of the penalty. I'm afraid that the NCAA will overreact to this and put in a rule that is not needed and will take away from the game.

Again, I do not see why an offense should be penalized more at that time than the rest of the game. It makes no sense.

Had the penalty itself caused another play with 1 second or no time on the clock, I could understand. But it did not, in this case. Yates spiked the ball with one second left. The penalty added nothing except the distance of the field goal. They should make it so that the defense (or offense for that matter) can decline ANY penalty if they want to avert time being added because of penalty, or plays that begin with 00 on the clock. But that was not the case in this game. All declining the penalty would have resulted in would have been UNC kicking it five yards closer in. Again, it was the spike, not the penalty that resulted in another play with :01 on the clock.

The only thing that was wrong with the end of that game was the official declaring it over. That was stupid.

Dr. Rosenrosen
01-01-2011, 09:51 AM
Here's my issue though. What difference did it make that they were not in a legal formation? It didn't affect the length of the game. Why should a team be penalized more at the end of a game than at any other time? UNC gained nothing with that penalty. It's not like their kicker missed and got to try over again.

Yates spiked the ball, killing the clock with a second left. UNC was then moved further back for having too man men on the field. So UNC gained nothing because of the penalty. I'm afraid that the NCAA will overreact to this and put in a rule that is not needed and will take away from the game.

Again, I do not see why an offense should be penalized more at that time than the rest of the game. It makes no sense.

The only thing that was wrong with the end of that game was the official declaring it over. That was stupid.

I have to agree. If they had somehow manufactured a penalty that stopped the clock (not even sure how you do that) instead of spiking the ball to stop the clock, then I can see where it would be deemed an unfair advantage and a runoff of the clock would be appropriate.

Newton_14
01-01-2011, 09:55 AM
Here's my issue though. What difference did it make that they were not in a legal formation? It didn't affect the length of the game. Why should a team be penalized more at the end of a game than at any other time? UNC gained nothing with that penalty. It's not like their kicker missed and got to try over again.

Yates spiked the ball, killing the clock with a second left. UNC was then moved further back for having too man men on the field. So UNC gained nothing because of the penalty. I'm afraid that the NCAA will overreact to this and put in a rule that is not needed and will take away from the game.

Again, I do not see why an offense should be penalized more at that time than the rest of the game. It makes no sense.

The only thing that was wrong with the end of that game was the official declaring it over. That was stupid.

Here is my view, and we can agree to disagree, that is cool. To me, being in a legal formation, with the correct amount of players on the field is part of making a legal play. Because of the bad play call, and the bad coaching decision to attempt to send on the field goal unit, UNC ran themselves out of time to get into a legal formation with the correct amount of players. No way they would have gotten the field goal team back off the field before the clock ran out.

The clock would have struck zero before they could get legally set and snap the ball. Snapping the ball illegally allowed UNC to draw a beneficial penalty and ultimately a chance to tie the game.

That is why I feel the rule needs to change.

sandinmyshoes
01-01-2011, 10:02 AM
Here is my view, and we can agree to disagree, that is cool. To me, being in a legal formation, with the correct amount of players on the field is part of making a legal play. Because of the bad play call, and the bad coaching decision to attempt to send on the field goal unit, UNC ran themselves out of time to get into a legal formation with the correct amount of players. No way they would have gotten the field goal team back off the field before the clock ran out.

The clock would have struck zero before they could get legally set and snap the ball. Snapping the ball illegally allowed UNC to draw a beneficial penalty and ultimately a chance to tie the game.

That is why I feel the rule needs to change.

The problem, for me, is that Yates didn't snap the ball illegally. What was illegal was having too many men on the field. They only added time to the clock because the clock operator didn't stop it at the spike, like he/she should have.

Remember, it's not like UNC wasn't penalized for their error. They had to kick five yards further back. That is the appropriate penalty in the middle of a game, why should it be different at the end of a game?

If they go with the countdown rule, I assume it will apply throughout the game. Though that seems, to me, that it is penalizing the offense more than the defense is being penalized, albeit not by much.

But, we can agree to disagree.

juise
01-01-2011, 10:07 AM
Here's my issue though. What difference did it make that they were not in a legal formation? It didn't affect the length of the game. Why should a team be penalized more at the end of a game than at any other time? UNC gained nothing with that penalty. It's not like their kicker missed and got to try over again.

When a team is in trying to stop the clock, have you ever noticed how the quarterback is usually waiting to run the play until all of his wide receivers reach the line of scrimmage and are set? If they don't have to wait for the downfield receivers or running backs to return to their place, then they can run the play earlier and save time. The defense knows that they wait, which is why they often try to lay on top of the tackled ball carrier (I saw this at the end of the Music City Bowl) to keep them from returning to formation.

So let's say that Carolina had run a passing play their with multiple receivers going to the end zone, but the quarter back was sacked for a short loss. The clock would run and Carolina would need to wait for those receivers to come all the way back upfield and reach their place in the formation before snapping the ball, likely costing them the rest of the remaining time. If they instead wanted to take a penalty, they could just snap the ball while the receivers were still downfield. Taking a penalty is not ideal, but stopping the clock is certainly more valuable in this situation.

So the action is basically like manipulating the rules to earn extra stoppages, which is why the NFL has a rule in place to prevent teams from doing this (they run time off the clock). Obviously, Carolina didn't intend to take a penalty there, but the rule certainly benefited them. They didn't have players downfield, but they also weren't in a legal formation to stop the clock. If they have to be in a legal formation to kick a field goal or score a touchdown, why shouldn't they have to be in legal formation to spike the ball?

34dukegal
01-01-2011, 10:11 AM
For the first time in my life I actually found myself pulling for a tarheel team. I think the rule needs to be changed to be the same as the NFL rule, but I think everybody is forgetting a play that happened a play earlier. TN had a VERY late hit on a Carolina player that was entirely overlook. That should have stopped the clock right there, and should have put Carolina in a position to score the touchdown and win the game without having to kick the field goal. There were some very iffy calls in that game, as well as the K State game prior.

uh_no
01-01-2011, 10:15 AM
Here's my issue though. What difference did it make that they were not in a legal formation?

The problem didn't present itself in this game, but one could theoretically manufacture a penalty to stop the clock if they had no timeouts...etc

this could mean coming down to the wire on 4th down with little time left and no timeouts, you could have like a false start, stop the clock and have time for the fg unit to run out.....again it didn't matter here becuase unc had an extra down and just needed to spike it

sandinmyshoes
01-01-2011, 10:15 AM
When a team is in trying to stop the clock, have you ever noticed how the quarterback is usually waiting to run the play until all of his wide receivers reach the line of scrimmage and are set? If they don't have to wait for the downfield receivers or running backs to return to their place, then they can run the play earlier and save time. The defense knows that they wait, which is why they often try to lay on top of the tackled ball carrier (I saw this at the end of the Music City Bowl) to keep them from returning to formation.

So let's say that Carolina had run a passing play their with multiple receivers going to the end zone, but the quarter back was sacked for a short loss. The clock would run and Carolina would need to wait for those receivers to come all the way back upfield and reach their place in the formation before snapping the ball, likely costing them the rest of the remaining time. If they instead wanted to take a penalty, they could just snap the ball while the receivers were still downfield. Taking a penalty is not ideal, but stopping the clock is certainly more valuable in this situation.

So the action is basically like manipulating the rules to earn extra stoppages, which is why the NFL has a rule in place to prevent teams from doing this (they run time off the clock). Obviously, Carolina didn't intend to take a penalty there, but the rule certainly benefited them. They didn't have players downfield, but they also weren't in a legal formation to stop the clock. If they have to be in a legal formation to kick a field goal or score a touchdown, why shouldn't they have to be in legal formation to spike the ball?

Let's imagine this scenario. An offense is pinned on it's own six yard line. There are eight seconds left in the game. It's fourth down. The team intentionally does all sorts of illegal shifts and a false start. The refs flag 'em, by rule, before the snap. They go half the distance. Then they do the 10 second countdown.... game over.

There are always going to be scenarios that stretch the rules. Like the "non-intentional" intentional fouling at the end of a basketball game. I think the main issue with this one is that most of us wanted UNC to lose. But what if they had won in the scenario I just detailed?

I should add, in full disclosure, that I was torn about who I wanted to win this game. I mean, it's UNC. Difficult to pull for them. On the other hand, I have come to loathe the SEC, and am no fan of Tenn.

Devilsfan
01-01-2011, 10:18 AM
I would be ashamed to accept a trophy or wear a ring after that performance. They should fire their coach and start over and search for someone who could bring integrity to the program. Like my grand daddy said "sometimes you have to burn down the barn to get rid of the rodents".

richardjackson199
01-01-2011, 10:35 AM
The only thing that was wrong with the end of that game was the official declaring it over. That was stupid.

This was the key issue in that game. The articles aren't spinning it that way. They say for example, "Tennessee had already started celebrating the victory" and leave it at that. Tennessee was celebrating the victory because the official came on the mic and said "time has expired, the game is over." He should have kept his mouth shut or said "the play is under review." By declaring the game is over, of course the Tennessee players are going to celebrate. Of course the thousands of partisan fans in Nashville are celebrating. The ref declared "the game is over." The coaches have already shaken hands. What happened after that to bring players back on the field looked like the Russia/USA olympics hoops game even though technically it was the correct call under the current rules. UNC had done nothing shady. They were stupid to run that extra running play which almost cost them the game. But then UNC players and fans got pelted with beer cans by angry fans. It was a very dangerous scene - and that is the referee's fault for horrible game management, not the rule's fault. Somebody could have gotten hurt. Then the Tennessee player gets penalized 15 yards for throwing his helmet down (when he's understandably pissed after the refs idiotic mistake), which means UNC only has to go 10 yards or so to score a touchdown in OT. Players have to take advantage of rules like that all the time. Like in the Ghana world cup game the defensive player stuck out his hand to save a goal at the end of the game. Then the Ghana star missed the penalty kick and Ghana loses - sometimes you benefit from penalties when rules are followed. That's how it goes. I have no problem with them changing the rule to the NFL way, but the problem in this game were the terrible referees. They bumbled many other calls as well - like that drive-killing intentional grounding call on UNC when there was a receiver in the direct vicinity. There were many other examples. I hope that referee crew never manages another big game. I'd never seen anything like it.

August West
01-01-2011, 11:03 AM
For the first time in my life I actually found myself pulling for a tarheel team. I think the rule needs to be changed to be the same as the NFL rule, but I think everybody is forgetting a play that happened a play earlier. TN had a VERY late hit on a Carolina player that was entirely overlook. That should have stopped the clock right there, and should have put Carolina in a position to score the touchdown and win the game without having to kick the field goal. There were some very iffy calls in that game, as well as the K State game prior.

I too was wondering why there was no call on that play. But after watching the replay, the player that made the late hit was pushed into him by a carolina player. That player then pointed saying, "look, that was a late hit". caolina should have been penalized for a block in the back or a late hit. That would have moved them back 10 or 15 yards depending on the call. Typical carolina sportsmanship, commit the violation then point the finger at someone else.

AW.

juise
01-01-2011, 11:48 AM
Let's imagine this scenario. An offense is pinned on it's own six yard line. There are eight seconds left in the game. It's fourth down. The team intentionally does all sorts of illegal shifts and a false start. The refs flag 'em, by rule, before the snap. They go half the distance. Then they do the 10 second countdown.... game over.

In that case, the defense could decline the penalty and take the result of the play (incomplete pass or whatever) to regain possession. I don't know if the NFL's rule has clauses to prevent using the rule in that way. If you watch the replay, UNC had 12 men set and five running off the field when the ball was snapped. They could have easily been flagged 15 yards instead of 5 for running a play with 12 men. The whole thing was disaster, as others have indicated. I just happen to think that the rule and ruling benefited UNC. I can see a way that others would disagree.



I think the main issue with this one is that most of us wanted UNC to lose.

One of the big issues for me is that I am much more used to seeing the NFL scenario. Typically, when college teams are running plays like this, the clocked is stopped to move the chains. In the NFL, the everyone run up to the line of scrimmage and spike the ball fire drill is more common because the clock doesn't stop.

I also loathe the SEC, so I was a little torn about the desired outcome. The local radio shows here in Oregon play Alabama sports talk radio clips to give fan perspective for the upcoming BCS title game. And, well.. that's all I have to say about that (to avoid insulting anyone).

sagegrouse
01-01-2011, 11:56 AM
There is a widespread misconception about the end of that game. The penalty on UNC in no way "helped" them to win the game. Yates' spike of the ball was a legit action and he did it with one second left. The spike stopped the clock, not the penalty. So UNC was in fact penalized for their infraction by having to kick the FG from five yards further back.

Other people keep complaining about the kicker and holder being on the field. But how is it any different than have a tailback and fullback behind the QB?

I just don't see how anyone can say UT was robbed. The officiating crew was a bumbling bunch, but the review crew put them right.

Well, I don't care whether Tennessee was robbed or not. But the Keystone Kops spectacle of the last ten seconds should not have led to a Carolina victory, but it did.

Now I feel sorry for Tennessee because they had an apparent upset victory at LSU taken away by having too many men on the field. Now they lose a game, even though Carolina on the key play seemed to have 20 or so folks on the field.

sagegrouse

moonpie23
01-01-2011, 11:56 AM
i think that they made the right call at the end of the game......review clearly showed he spiked it with a second left.....

there was another odd ending for the Ga /UCF game last night, which gave ga a final play.....i think that was a correct call as well...

shoutingncu
01-01-2011, 12:09 PM
I hope that referee crew never manages another big game...

You mean another 7 - 5 versus 6 - 6 game? ;)

sandinmyshoes
01-01-2011, 12:15 PM
In that case, the defense could decline the penalty and take the result of the play (incomplete pass or whatever) to regain possession.

I'm not sure the defense has an option to decline that sort of penalty, do they? The play is ruled dead before the snap. I've actually seen plays replayed after a defensive stop because the ref blew the whistle just before the snap because of a false start or illegal shift.

Such a scenario is unlikely to occur, but then, so is the sort of scenario at the end of the UT/UNC game.

That's why I think giving the defense the option of declining a penalty at the end of the game is a better solution than a countdown. It wouldn't have helped Tenn, but imo UNC had a right to that one second regardless of the penalty. It's rather how the defense tries to hold players down or otherwise hinder the offense from getting back to the line of scrimmage in those sort of end game scenarios.

On another matter. I was confused about the unsportsmanlike penalty on Tenn. at the end of the game. Turned out it was for throwing a helmet, as others have mentioned. At the time I thought it was for roughing the kicker on the FG attempt. Did Tenn. not run into the UNC kicker on that last play of regulation?

sandinmyshoes
01-01-2011, 12:21 PM
You mean another 7 - 5 versus 6 - 6 game? ;)

:D Although, I'm not sure that as Duke fans we should be offering that sort of ribbing, still a good one.

rthomas
01-01-2011, 12:23 PM
After watching the Tenn QB make throat slash moves after every big play he made, it was satisfying to see him throw the interception that lost the game for him and his team. Throat slash.

Acymetric
01-01-2011, 12:29 PM
I'm not sure the defense has an option to decline that sort of penalty, do they? The play is ruled dead before the snap. I've actually seen plays replayed after a defensive stop because the ref blew the whistle just before the snap because of a false start or illegal shift.

Such a scenario is unlikely to occur, but then, so is the sort of scenario at the end of the UT/UNC game.

That's why I think giving the defense the option of declining a penalty at the end of the game is a better solution than a countdown. It wouldn't have helped Tenn, but imo UNC had a right to that one second regardless of the penalty. It's rather how the defense tries to hold players down or otherwise hinder the offense from getting back to the line of scrimmage in those sort of end game scenarios.

On another matter. I was confused about the unsportsmanlike penalty on Tenn. at the end of the game. Turned out it was for throwing a helmet, as others have mentioned. At the time I thought it was for roughing the kicker on the FG attempt. Did Tenn. not run into the UNC kicker on that last play of regulation?

They couldn't decline and take the result of the play because there is no play (penalty before play started, dead ball and all that). I believe they could decline the penalty and simply replay the down avoiding the 10 second runoff.

Acymetric
01-01-2011, 12:30 PM
After watching the Tenn QB make throat slash moves after every big play he made, it was satisfying to see him throw the interception that lost the game for him and his team. Throat slash.

Are you sure that isn't some a hand signal of some sort to communicate with other players on the field or the sidelines? I'm not convinced it was done in the way you're implying.

richardjackson199
01-01-2011, 12:30 PM
You mean another 7 - 5 versus 6 - 6 game? ;)

Regardless of records, the stadium was packed with partisan Tenn. fans who'd had lots of alcohol at the end of a bowl game. Any bowl game is a big deal to those teams' players and fans. After the referee came on the mic with the 'time has expired, the game is over'....(for hurley1)......coaches shaking hands......players & fans celebrating.....now the refs come back on the mic and in essence say 'oh wait just kidding. There is one second left and UNC is kicking a field goal.' The shocked Tenn. player throws his helmet to the ground in disgust and then gets penalized 15 yards, potentially affecting the OT outcome. Now you have a very dangerous situation both off the field and on. On the field Tenn players are now tackling UNC players blatantly by their facemasks. Off of it drunk fans are throwing beer cans onto UNC fans and players. Yet we read, "David Parry, who oversees college football officiating for the NCAA, told The Associated Press in a telephone interview that the Big Ten officials handled the confusing final seconds properly." Um no. I think at the end if the referee had said nothing or that "the play was under review," and then made the proper ruling, the danger would have been avoided. That would have been the officials handling the confusing final seconds properly.
Other thoughts - how clutch is Casey Barth? You know he got some.
Also - I don't think UNC should have been eligible for a bowl game after the magnitude and pervasiveness of what happened off the field that same season. The NCAA has plenty of evidence by now to make a ruling - not sure why they move at the pace of molasses meaning the team that committed the infraction is not the same one that ends up getting penalized. But that is the subject of another thread

juise
01-01-2011, 12:53 PM
I'm not sure the defense has an option to decline that sort of penalty, do they? The play is ruled dead before the snap. I've actually seen plays replayed after a defensive stop because the ref blew the whistle just before the snap because of a false start or illegal shift.

It depends on what is called. False starts are dead ball penalties that cannot be declined. Illegal shifts occur at the snap (because players in motion were not set) and are therefore live ball penalties.

sandinmyshoes
01-01-2011, 01:02 PM
Are you sure that isn't some a hand signal of some sort to communicate with other players on the field or the sidelines? I'm not convinced it was done in the way you're implying.

I only saw him do that once, but he was facing the UNC sideline. At first I thought he was doing the gesture toward his own players on the bench, but then saw him turn around and run toward his own bench.

He's just a freshman. He should learn. Hopefully it won't be in a manner of the KSU player who got flagged for what seemed a much less inappropriate gesture, imo.

richardjackson199
01-01-2011, 01:17 PM
the KSU player who got flagged for what seemed a much less inappropriate gesture, imo.

Yeah seriously. I like watching them celebrate just a little after making a huge play. That's why they put it in the video game. Esp. if the celebration is not directed toward humiliating an opposing player, it's kinda ridiculous that the referee then makes a game-deciding call over it. And now they're saying next year the call will take away the touchdown for such a play and a 15-yard penalty will be assessed. Excessive? Fans like to see players decide the game and referees use good judgment when a player quickly salutes the fans. Thank goodness this isn't happening so much in hoops and players can still yell after posterizing dunks which I love to see. Or could you imagine if in the last Olympics after Kobe had made that 4-point play and made a "Shhhh" gesture at the Spanish fans that the points had been taken away?

devildeac
01-01-2011, 01:45 PM
The problem, for me, is that Yates didn't snap the ball illegally. What was illegal was having too many men on the field. They only added time to the clock because the clock operator didn't stop it at the spike, like he/she should have.

Remember, it's not like UNC wasn't penalized for their error. They had to kick five yards further back. That is the appropriate penalty in the middle of a game, why should it be different at the end of a game?

If they go with the countdown rule, I assume it will apply throughout the game. Though that seems, to me, that it is penalizing the offense more than the defense is being penalized, albeit not by much.

But, we can agree to disagree.

Whose responsibility is it to stop the clock in that situation, the clock operator or a ref on the field? My objection/misunderstanding/confusion about the event is that if the clock stops/is stopped "instantaneously," then the call is correct. If the ref has to blow a whistle, signal with his arms to stop the clock, then that sure as heck takes more than a second and the game should have been over. Or, IOW, there should have been some more time run off the clock as the ball was snapped and spiked and THEN the ref blows his whistle and signals for the official timekeeper to stop his clock.

Deslok
01-01-2011, 02:27 PM
Actually, this whole thing is reminding me of something I saw in the NFL sometime in the recent past. I'm scrambling my mind to remember the teams involved but I can't seem to come up with(using the NFL gamepass I'm usually trying to watch as many of the games as I can, so it gets a bit confusing trying recall particular details about games I'm not inherently interested in by the teams involved). But the basic set was this: time running down in the game, team with no timeouts left, complete a decent yard completion over the middle that got them into field goal range. Team scrambles forward to try to spike the ball in time to get the field goal unit on before the end of the game. QB gets the snap and spikes the ball with like 6 seconds on the clock. But the detail is, the offensive team wasn't in proper formation at the snap. So I was figuring game over. Refs huddle up, and the ruling was "Because the offensive players were set, just in an improper formation, the 10 second runoff rule does not apply, 5 yard penalty assessed" and they got a chance to kick the field goal. To me that made no sense(though I'm presuming it is the proper technical interpretation of the rule). If that's the way it is, then why can't an offensive team just have any 2 players sprint down to where the ball is spotted, have everyone else stand stock still where they are, and snap and spike the ball. There's no illegal motion so no runoff of time, just a 5 second illegal formation with the clock stopping. Seems like an ideal way to keep the game going for a team without losing significant time.

Anyway, while its never a bad thing for the Heels to lose, the gack orange Vols losing doesn't break my heart in the least, so lets just move along and hope the Heels get some serious NCAA sanctions from the NCAA.

hurley1
01-01-2011, 02:33 PM
My problem goes back even further than at the very end of the game. The penalty on the Tenn. safety for head to head contact I didn't agree with. It may be in the rules now, but, football is a collission sport. The safety was leading with his shoulder and made a good hit on the receiver. This was the play that put N.C. in field goal position. Without that 15 yd. penalty, none of this would have happened. They are going to ruin football with all these panzy penalties. I don't want to see anyone hurt, however, when you are tackling a world class athlete you can't love him to the ground, you have to HIT HIM. I also thought the Tenn. coach made a huge mistake giving N.C. the ball on the 12 yd. line in the first overtime. In overtime the offense has the advantage because of tackling. It is much harder to tackle when you are dead tired than to block or run when you are tired. Had the Tenn. coach took the ball, he would have gotten it on the 40, first and 25. I would have rather had that situation than give the ball to N.C. first and 10 on the 12.

richardjackson199
01-01-2011, 02:58 PM
I also thought the Tenn. coach made a huge mistake giving N.C. the ball on the 12 yd. line in the first overtime. In overtime the offense has the advantage because of tackling. It is much harder to tackle when you are dead tired than to block or run when you are tired. Had the Tenn. coach took the ball, he would have gotten it on the 40, first and 25. I would have rather had that situation than give the ball to N.C. first and 10 on the 12.

Good points - I respectfully disagree with this one. If Tenn had taken the ball 1st and 25 on the 40, that would be pretty hard to score. You're pretty much out of field goal range from there as well. And then by letting UNC act last, they have the advantage of knowing how many points they have to score, and thus whether they should go for it on 4th down, kick a field goal on 2nd down, etc. But either way that 15 yard penalty to start OT put Tenn in a pretty huge (tar-)hole, esp. after they'd lost all the momentum.

hedevil
01-01-2011, 03:03 PM
I also thought/think that the Tenn player lead with his shoulder, however, in full speed it is hard to tell, and he (Tenn defender) did set both feet and launch into a pretty defenseless player. I can't disagree too much on that one.

hurley1
01-01-2011, 04:17 PM
I also thought/think that the Tenn player lead with his shoulder, however, in full speed it is hard to tell, and he (Tenn defender) did set both feet and launch into a pretty defenseless player. I can't disagree too much on that one.

Yes, he did set both feet and put everything he had into the hit, but, isn't that the way the game should be played ? Anytime you get hit from the blindside you are defenseless, but, that's all part of the game. I got knocked out cold in high school playing football from a blind side lick, but, to me, it is all part of the game. Ididn't cry to the ref that he hit me too hard when I wasn't looking........;).....the guy that hit me was much bigger than me and a real stud.......he lit me up.......:D

captmojo
01-01-2011, 04:20 PM
Everyone has made good points in this discussion but the point is being missed. No losing team should point to one single action or play that cost them the game. There are plenty of other opportunities to have done something different that would have changed the outcome.

The purpose of the NFL rule is to create an incentive for the team with the ball from being able to stop the clock by intentionally creating a penalty. The washing balance is the rule that the clock cannot expire on a play with a defensive penalty.

The comparison of the intentional foul in basketball is like...comparing apples to oranges.

I think a change toward the NFL rule is appropriate. It may be the only NFL rule carry over I might agree with. For example, I absolutely dispise the fact that the pro game doesn't stop the clock on first down achievement. Why should the offense be penalized with the loss of time waiting for a chain gang to set up in a new spot? I digress.

moonpie23
01-01-2011, 07:33 PM
After watching the Tenn QB make throat slash moves after every big play he made, it was satisfying to see him throw the interception that lost the game for him and his team. Throat slash.

I'm kinda with you.....he's a freshman....i bet he learned a lesson ...


Are you sure that isn't some a hand signal of some sort to communicate with other players on the field or the sidelines? I'm not convinced it was done in the way you're implying.

i am.....he was clearly giving them the "Todd Ellis"

Kfanarmy
01-01-2011, 10:38 PM
Here is my view, and we can agree to disagree, that is cool. To me, being in a legal formation, with the correct amount of players on the field is part of making a legal play. Because of the bad play call, and the bad coaching decision to attempt to send on the field goal unit, UNC ran themselves out of time to get into a legal formation with the correct amount of players. No way they would have gotten the field goal team back off the field before the clock ran out.

The clock would have struck zero before they could get legally set and snap the ball. Snapping the ball illegally allowed UNC to draw a beneficial penalty and ultimately a chance to tie the game.

That is why I feel the rule needs to change.

so if this happens with 14:30 left in the first quarter, do you also want a 10sec runoff. I agree with others who think you shouldn't be penalized any more or less at the end of the game than at the beginning for the same infraction.

-jk
01-01-2011, 10:49 PM
so if this happens with 14:30 left in the first quarter, do you also want a 10sec runoff. I agree with others who think you shouldn't be penalized any more or less at the end of the game than at the beginning for the same infraction.

I'm not sure it's quite so simple. Clock management is different at the end of a game. It's why the clock stops after made baskets in hoops during the last minute.

Addressing that difference in some technical way doesn't seem beyond reasonable.

Of course you have to watch for unintended consequences. Anyone remember players chased into the stands at the end of a game when the rule was two shots and the ball for every foul?

I don't claim to have the slightest idea how it should be resolved, though. I don't know football any where close to well enough.

-jk

Newton_14
01-02-2011, 12:44 PM
so if this happens with 14:30 left in the first quarter, do you also want a 10sec runoff. I agree with others who think you shouldn't be penalized any more or less at the end of the game than at the beginning for the same infraction.

It is not about being penalized more or less. The NFL rule is in place for a reason. This situation would never occur at the 14:30 mark. If there were still 14:30 left, UNC would have simply continued on trying for a touchdown, and there would be no reason to rush on the field or spike the ball. This situation would only ever happen at the end of a half or the end of a game.

Carolina ran a high risk play, and then made the horrible mistake of trying to send the field goal unit onto the field. They put themselves in a position of not having enough time to get set in a legal formation with the correct number of players on the field. To make a legal snap/play, they would have had to wait until the field goal unit got back off the field before snapping the ball, but doing so would have meant the clock running out and losing.

So they snapped it illegally with half of the FG Unit still on the field which enabled them to avoid the loss.

Under the current rules, they won the game fair and square. My position is that the rule should be changed and according to the article, it looks like the rules committee will do just that.

allenmurray
01-02-2011, 02:37 PM
Yes, he did set both feet and put everything he had into the hit, but, isn't that the way the game should be played ?

Yes, if you accept that life-long brain damage is an appropriate sequealae of playing football. If you don't accept that then having rules that offer a disincentive to inflict life-long brain damage is wise.

I think it is a good thing to have the ability to change how we do things based on the review of new information. The fact that we used to accept certain behaviors doesn't mean we alwsays have to if in the meantime we have learned a bit about brain science.

calltheobvious
01-02-2011, 05:00 PM
Good points - I respectfully disagree with this one. If Tenn had taken the ball 1st and 25 on the 40, that would be pretty hard to score. You're pretty much out of field goal range from there as well. And then by letting UNC act last, they have the advantage of knowing how many points they have to score, and thus whether they should go for it on 4th down, kick a field goal on 2nd down, etc. But either way that 15 yard penalty to start OT put Tenn in a pretty huge (tar-)hole, esp. after they'd lost all the momentum.

Here's the thing, though: I don't think it wouldn't have been 1st and 25. Dead-ball fouls following first downs are administered after the first down, but before the setting of the chains; i.e. you walk off the yardage for the foul, then set the ten-yard chains. Unless there's an overtime exception that I'm unaware of (if they discussed this on the broadcast I apologize, as I didn't see it live), it would have been 1st and 10.

I'm still not sure which way I'd go in that situation, but it certainly is a neat decision-tree to ponder.

richardjackson199
01-02-2011, 05:34 PM
Here's the thing, though: I don't think it wouldn't have been 1st and 25. Dead-ball fouls following first downs are administered after the first down, but before the setting of the chains; i.e. you walk off the yardage for the foul, then set the ten-yard chains. Unless there's an overtime exception that I'm unaware of (if they discussed this on the broadcast I apologize, as I didn't see it live), it would have been 1st and 10.

I'm still not sure which way I'd go in that situation, but it certainly is a neat decision-tree to ponder.

I don't know if it's 1st and 10 or 1st and 25 from the 40. I got the 1st and 25 from hurley1. Dude has taken some nasty football hits, so he sounds like a man who would know. Either way - I personally would not choose to start by taking the ball on the 40 because of the reasons I said. But I'm not a football coach for good reason, and it's muy interesante. Bowl season has been reasonably lame so far - I hate that it's so stretched out. I loved the old New Year's Day format that felt like March madness starting with so many games. I'm so excited for ACC hoops to start I can't stand it. Go Duke!!

Reddevil
01-03-2011, 10:06 AM
If that's the way it is, then why can't an offensive team just have any 2 players sprint down to where the ball is spotted, have everyone else stand stock still where they are, and snap and spike the ball. There's no illegal motion so no runoff of time, just a 5 second illegal formation with the clock stopping. Seems like an ideal way to keep the game going for a team without losing significant time.

For that matter, any one player could snap the ball to himself and spike it, which of course is illegal, but the result would be the same, or maybe that could be called illegal motion, I'm not sure, but either way, the rules should dictate that a team cannot help itself by breaking them.

A-Tex Devil
01-03-2011, 10:25 AM
I'm not sure it's quite so simple. Clock management is different at the end of a game. It's why the clock stops after made baskets in hoops during the last minute.

Addressing that difference in some technical way doesn't seem beyond reasonable.

Of course you have to watch for unintended consequences. Anyone remember players chased into the stands at the end of a game when the rule was two shots and the ball for every foul?

I don't claim to have the slightest idea how it should be resolved, though. I don't know football any where close to well enough.

-jk


Following up on some of the above -- isn't the 10 second runoff in the NFL only for deadball penalties like false starts? I would think an illegal procedure/too many men/illegal motion penalty, which aren't dead ball penalties would have had the same effect in the NFL.