The refs actually helped Rice by calling the penalty on that FG. It assured that Rice could get the kick off. Rice had no TOs and the penalty stopped the clock and moved the ball closer. Also, you need to understand the ramifications of choices you make during the game. Let's say you declined the penalty. 1) You keep it a 53 yard FG instead of a 48 yard FG. Why make it harder on yourself? 2) The clock will restart when the ball is signaled ready by the refs and there was only 4 seconds left. The sequencing would have to be that the captain declines the penalty to the ref and then runs back to his position and gets set while the rest of the team is getting set as the ref signals the ball ready for play. Again, why make it harder for yourself? The captain is going to have to tell his players to get set, tell the ref they decline the penalty, and then run back and get set so that they can snap the ball within 4 seconds. And, the kicker has to remain set and focus on the kick. And if the captain is the holder, it becomes even harder on the kicker as he has to mark the spot without the holder who is over talking to the ref.

My point is that players and coaches need to be playing the game in the future to maximize their opportunities.

I have no problem with kicking FGs. The most important thing an offense can do is score points. Let's say we take those 6 penetrations into A&M territory and link them with a FG opportunity. Rice missed the first attempt and scored a TD on another so that leaves three attempts. Let's say Rice makes 2 of 3. If it all played out similarly (a big assumption), you are looking at a 21-13 halftime game and possibly 21-16. The gameplan wasn't necessarily bad. The lack of production (or execution as some may say) was.

And there in lies the conundrum. Do you continue to do what you do to increase repetitions in a game situation to make you even better against less talented teams? Or, do you do things that you normally don't do in hopes of increasing production with no guarantee that it will improve production and couple that with a squandered chance for core repetition? I think I have a pretty good idea how everyone would answer those 2 questions.

(09-15-2014 10:22 AM)talon owl Wrote:  I get the gameplan to eat up the clock and keep our depleted defense off the field. But you have to know those few instances wherein more aggression is needed in order to finish drives and score touchdowns.

But if the defense also notes those instances...

Variation in play calling and/or timing can produce dramatic results. I would have like liked to see more in both areas, especially on third and fourth down, but overall I was OK with the play calling and game plan. We moved the ball well between the 20s. Need some tweaking in the red zone or close to it.

(the following is generic and not directed at Talon)

I don't agree with idea some here have that Bailiff and the rest of the coaching staff and some of the players gave these first two games scant attention because they were "preseason" or "glorified scrimmages". But I do recognize a difference between our first two games and the rest of the season. We played the toughest first, and the next ten or eleven or twelve will seem much easier in comparison to those two. If you want to compare it to something other than the NFL, try SEAL training or other military training. You do the tough stuff first to prepare yourself. I think we are ready for the remaining season, much more so than if we had beaten South Central Middle North New York State 73-0 and Northeastern Alaska 84-0. Our kids have gone against the biggest and fastest and know they can compete.

(09-15-2014 11:00 AM)ruowls Wrote:  I have no problem with kicking FGs.

I should hope not, lol.

I'm not interested in seeing an all-out sprint on offense. We don't have the depth ourselves to do that I don't think... but I WOULD like to see some mixed tempo. LOTS of teams go hurry hurry after a 1st down... but I might do differently... If it's 2nd and 15 and we're running something underneath, meaning we might come up short... you KNOW they have a base to a dime package in... and while we MIGHT bring in a TE to help block on 3rd and 2, THEY might be bringing in bigger/slower DL and linebackers... meaning whatever advantage we pick up by adding a TE or FB is neutralized... What if we went hurry on 3rd and 2 (especially in the red zone) and used our regular o-line and our backs who are powerful enough to go up the middle for 2 (especially against a dime package). If it's 1st and 10 and we get 8, maybe you go hurry hurry on second and run a favorite pass play (probably something crossing/in the middle... not necessarily deep).

The idea is simply to get to the line and be a THREAT to run a quick play. We seem to get to the line, but almost never (I can't remember doing so but I'm sure we have once) run a quick play. It seems to me we should have speed option/toss/jet (for when we catch them in 'heavy') and something power/wildOwl (for when we catch them in dime) 'at the ready'. If Bob was in on 3rd, Put DJ a lone split out. They either cover him or they don't. If they cover him, he's done the same job that JT would have accomplished... and if they don't, I could complete a pass to him.... Just don't let them cover 2 people with 1 guy. If you don't like the look... (have a simple read) DJ comes back to QB and Bob goes to TE/H/RB and you have time to Meercat. Mix 2-3 of those plays every week... run them every so often in practice unexpectedly. Just have the coach call out from time to time in practice... hurry hurry... the guys line up, the QB calls a play and we run it. Not all the time. Maybe only 4-5 times a game... but you have to practice it often enough to be 'ready'. We obviously already have signals for plays that can come in pretty quickly.

I'd defer to the coaches on exactly how they'd want to mix it in, but I'd really encourage them to find some way to throw some tempo in there (without making it so rare that we execute it poorly)

I mean seriously... It's essentially the 2 minute drill the practice every week. How hard can it be to go hurry hurry twice a quarter?

I starting singing their Twelve Man song after that 12th man took our points off the board. I know it is the rule because the ball was blown dead but it is hard when they benefit by having a penalty.

(09-14-2014 10:48 PM)DFW Owl Wrote:  

(09-14-2014 09:35 PM)WeatherfordOwl Wrote:  And it appears to be a great tactic which can be employed to erase scored points at critical times in future games.

Has the too many men on the field penalty changed recently? I recall seeing a lot of those in years past and it was not, or did not seem to be, a dead ball foul. I don't understand why it should be in the first place.

It is only dead ball foul when the ref recognizes it before the snap. This is probably almost always the case though. The idea is to stop the play before it even starts..the whistle just came a bit late last night. It could have easily helped us if we had missed 1st attempt and made the 2nd. Ags would have been mad if that had happened. Maybe they could have convinced the SEC refs to end the half since they actually only had 11 players on the field.

Perhaps the rule did change at some point. Maybe they used to throw flag after the snap?

(09-15-2014 10:08 AM)Orange County Owl Wrote:  

(09-15-2014 08:51 AM)rice-parent Wrote:  My guess is that the infraction occurred prior to the snap. The ball is dead at that point. The flag came in late. If you decline the penalty then you would replay 4th down at the same spot.

Agreed.

Not sure if this was discussed anywhere in this thread, but I'm pretty sure that I heard a whistle prior to the snap.

There is a whistle sound on the recording about a second after the ball is kicked. The whistle didn't change the play at all.

Guys...

First, this isn't the first time this has happened. Here is a link to an article where Duke had a 53 yard field goal taken off the board due to an illegal substitution penalty on Cincinnati in 2012. It couldn't possibly be more on point. It also references another call in 2010. It seems that we are right on schedule with the next such occurrence pending in 2016.

http://acc.blogs.starnewsonline.com/3405...was-right/

Note the quote of rule 3-5-3 b - emphasis mine

Whether the snap is imminent or has just occurred, the officials shall stop the action.

PENALTY–[a-b] Dead-ball foul. Five yards at the succeeding spot. [S22]

It is only a live ball foul if the infraction isn't noticed until after the kick.

Obviously the official saw 12... but is supposed to give time for him to leave... and if he doesn't and the ball is snapped (as it was) it is a dead-ball foul and the whistle is blown AFTER the snap.

That seems to be exactly what happened.

The rule can cut both ways, though. It can give a kicker a mulligan.

(09-16-2014 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Obviously the official saw 12... but is supposed to give time for him to leave... and if he doesn't and the ball is snapped (as it was) it is a dead-ball foul and the whistle is blown AFTER the snap.

That seems to be exactly what happened.

Except the photographic and video evidence only shows 11 TAMU players on the field before the snap. Where was number 12?

(09-16-2014 11:25 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Obviously the official saw 12... but is supposed to give time for him to leave... and if he doesn't and the ball is snapped (as it was) it is a dead-ball foul and the whistle is blown AFTER the snap.

That seems to be exactly what happened.

Except the photographic and video evidence only shows 11 TAMU players on the field before the snap. Where was number 12?

Fine, but all that means is that he miscounted... not that he didn't follow the rule book. I'd say the probability that he missed and would have benefitted from a second, closer chance far outweighs the probability that he would make it and then miss. See Frizzy's comment. I realizes that is precisely what happened, and thus it sucks for us... but it is hard to argue that the official INTENTIONALLY made a mistake.

Given what he claims he saw (maybe he simply miscounted) the call was correct... and as a dead-ball foul (by rule) taking 'the play' would have NEVER been an option, even under review.

Maybe you change the rule so that it is a live ball and you get the option. That is precisely what was argued n 2010 and 2012. Obviously there's a reason they don't want to make that change.

(09-16-2014 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:25 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Obviously the official saw 12... but is supposed to give time for him to leave... and if he doesn't and the ball is snapped (as it was) it is a dead-ball foul and the whistle is blown AFTER the snap.

That seems to be exactly what happened.

Except the photographic and video evidence only shows 11 TAMU players on the field before the snap. Where was number 12?

Fine, but all that means is that he miscounted... not that he didn't follow the rule book. I'd say the probability that he missed and would have benefitted from a second, closer chance far outweighs the probability that he would make it and then miss. See Frizzy's comment. I realizes that is precisely what happened, and thus it sucks for us... but it is hard to argue that the official INTENTIONALLY made a mistake.

Given what he claims he saw (maybe he simply miscounted) the call was correct... and as a dead-ball foul (by rule) taking 'the play' would have NEVER been an option, even under review.

Maybe you change the rule so that it is a live ball and you get the option. That is precisely what was argued n 2010 and 2012. Obviously there's a reason they don't want to make that change.

I don't disagree he followed the rules, it was the "obviously the official saw 12" comment to which I was reacting.

I do think if the play begins, it is unfair to the offense for the penalty to be a dead-ball foul. Once the play happens, it should be the offense's option to accept or refuse the penalty.

(09-16-2014 03:07 PM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 01:17 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:25 AM)Tomball Owl Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 11:05 AM)Hambone10 Wrote:  Obviously the official saw 12... but is supposed to give time for him to leave... and if he doesn't and the ball is snapped (as it was) it is a dead-ball foul and the whistle is blown AFTER the snap.

That seems to be exactly what happened.

Except the photographic and video evidence only shows 11 TAMU players on the field before the snap. Where was number 12?

Fine, but all that means is that he miscounted... not that he didn't follow the rule book. I'd say the probability that he missed and would have benefitted from a second, closer chance far outweighs the probability that he would make it and then miss. See Frizzy's comment. I realizes that is precisely what happened, and thus it sucks for us... but it is hard to argue that the official INTENTIONALLY made a mistake.

Given what he claims he saw (maybe he simply miscounted) the call was correct... and as a dead-ball foul (by rule) taking 'the play' would have NEVER been an option, even under review.

Maybe you change the rule so that it is a live ball and you get the option. That is precisely what was argued n 2010 and 2012. Obviously there's a reason they don't want to make that change.

I don't disagree he followed the rules, it was the "obviously the official saw 12" comment to which I was reacting.

I do think if the play begins, it is unfair to the offense for the penalty to be a dead-ball foul. Once the play happens, it should be the offense's option to accept or refuse the penalty.

In this case, obviously, the dead ball foul portion of the rule worked against us. However, wouldn't we be complaining that they should have enforced the dead ball portion of the rule if we had lost a player to injury on a play that shouldn't have happened? And, with the field in as crappy of shape as it was, that was entirely possible.

I'm not following your question. Dead ball or live ball penalty, we'd be complaining about losing a player. If we lost a player and the refs took points off the board, we'd really be po'd.

I'll give you something even worse...

How do you think Hairston felt before the first attempt? My guess, calm and focused. How do you think he felt before the second attempt. Something OTHER than calm and focused. How often do you see a kicker 'squib" a kick-off after a big kick. Too much adrenalin.

I think the defensive substitution play needs to be changed to a live ball foul to keep the advantage AWAY from the offending team under ANY circumstances... That being said, it looks like the officials may have miscounted, but interpreted the rule correctly.

(09-16-2014 04:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll give you something even worse...

How do you think Hairston felt before the first attempt? My guess, calm and focused. How do you think he felt before the second attempt. Something OTHER than calm and focused. How often do you see a kicker 'squib" a kick-off after a big kick. Too much adrenalin.

I think the defensive substitution play needs to be changed to a live ball foul to keep the advantage AWAY from the offending team under ANY circumstances... That being said, it looks like the officials may have miscounted, but interpreted the rule correctly.

While some were mixed a lot of studies (IIRC) found no statistical difference between the first kick or a rekick. Icing a kicker for example, doesn't really seem to matter.

Regardless, it should be a live ball foul as the offending team should never be able to benefit from their screwup.

(09-16-2014 04:59 PM)Antarius Wrote:  

(09-16-2014 04:52 PM)Hambone10 Wrote:  I'll give you something even worse...

How do you think Hairston felt before the first attempt? My guess, calm and focused. How do you think he felt before the second attempt. Something OTHER than calm and focused. How often do you see a kicker 'squib" a kick-off after a big kick. Too much adrenalin.

I think the defensive substitution play needs to be changed to a live ball foul to keep the advantage AWAY from the offending team under ANY circumstances... That being said, it looks like the officials may have miscounted, but interpreted the rule correctly.

While some were mixed a lot of studies (IIRC) found no statistical difference between the first kick or a rekick. Icing a kicker for example, doesn't really seem to matter.

Icing a kicker isn't the same. He didn't just make the kick and was jubilant about it. He may have made it (the iced kicker) but he didn't celebrate like it counted.

As to the study, I'd question what they really measured. We're not talking about a 39 yarder in a garden-variety and/or professional game, but what would be one of the 5-10 longest FGs in Rice history in front of 100k from a guy attempting, what... his 5th attempt in college? I have a feeling this meant a lot to this young man.

Quote:Regardless, it should be a live ball foul as the offending team should never be able to benefit from their screwup.

Agreed 100%

This rule got changed several years ago, because offenses were huddling with 12 (including an extra TE or WR) and when they broke the huddle either a TE or WR would run off. This caused defenses problems matching personnel, because they didn't know whether the TE or the WR was going to be the one to leave. To prevent this, breaking the huddle with 12 was established as a dead ball foul, separate from participation in the play by 12, which is a live ball foul. And it is called against both offense and defense. Problem is that with so many offenses not huddling, when is the time to call it against the offense, and if the defense doesn't huddle (and many don't, at least not fully) when do you call it against them? In this case, it was a special teams down, and most players on both sides simply ran onto the field and lined up. In that situation, it's difficult at best to know when and how to call the dead ball foul. Personally, I think the dead ball foul needs to go away and just call the live ball foul.

(09-16-2014 05:30 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  This rule got changed several years ago, because offenses were huddling with 12 (including an extra TE or WR) and when they broke the huddle either a TE or WR would run off. This caused defenses problems matching personnel, because they didn't know whether the TE or the WR was going to be the one to leave. To prevent this, breaking the huddle with 12 was established as a dead ball foul, separate from participation in the play by 12, which is a live ball foul. And it is called against both offense and defense. Problem is that with so many offenses not huddling, when is the time to call it against the offense, and if the defense doesn't huddle (and many don't, at least not fully) when do you call it against them? In this case, it was a special teams down, and most players on both sides simply ran onto the field and lined up. In that situation, it's difficult at best to know when and how to call the dead ball foul. Personally, I think the dead ball foul needs to go away and just call the live ball foul.

You forgot "past the numbers".
See post 453