(09-16-2016 09:30 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 09:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 08:58 AM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  In law, extraordinary circumstances may result in a verdict justified by Jury Nullification. All trial lawyers are well acquainted with its application.

What is Jury Nullification? It allows a jury to reach a verdict based upon ignoring a law because it is deemed to be unjust.

By what Rationale does Jury Nullification exist? It serves as a check on the passage of bad laws by refusing to recognize the validity of bad laws.

Comparing Jury Nullification to the Debacle. In actuality, the refs didn't use Jury Nullification in their decision making. But the analogy can be made, because the obscure rule is poorly written; it allows a team to commit a penalty without being penalized. (The refs did apply a rule in making their decision, the logical rule that states a game cannot end on a penalty, unless it is declined.)

So there you have it. CMU won the game, fair and square.

#FreeTheMAC8

Full disclosure: I'm not a lawyer, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express the night before the OSU/CMU game.

You're also a CMU fan. The rule as written is perfectly logical. The extra time is only for when the other team is trying to score.

No, it's not logical. A team shouldn't be allowed to intentionally ground on fourth down to end the game.

Why didn't they just take a knee? The whole thing was stupid.

(09-16-2016 11:46 AM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  RE: Take the intentional grounding rule in football. If the QB deliberately throws an incomplete pass at his feet to stop the clock, that particular intentional grounding of the ball is permitted. If the QB thinks a pass in the end zone to a closely guarded receiver is unwise, he is allowed to deliberately throw an incomplete pass by sending the ball into the cheap seats. Likewise, he can use the same tactic by throwing the ball out of bounds "in the vicinity" of an eligible receiver. The point is, his intent is irrelevant.

So why is "clocking" the ball to stop the clock legal? One purpose, and one purpose only. To give the trailing team a better chance to catch up, so fans will remain engaged until the very end, and won't change the channel. That's the same reason that intentional fouls at the end of a basketball game are allowed by the referee, but the same fouls earlier in the game aren't. These games are entertainment, and we are willing to allow a rule that is on its face unfair to the team that is winning the game just so we can be entertained a few minutes longer. Because exciting finishes are more fun than blowouts.

You have done a good job of citing examples of legal plays with the expressed purpose of EXTENDING games. But they don't jive with a poorly worded rule that currently allows a team to commit a penalty to SHORTEN a game.

To be honest, I have never actually seen the rule in print. I thought that, after the game was over, it was agreed that the rule was just misinterpreted. The game was over (or should have been) because time had expired while the leading team was still in possession of the ball. Change of possession doesn't occur until after a fourth down play that fails to make a first down is over. If the play was over while there was still time on the clock, there would be no need to play an "untimed" down. You just play a "timed" down, even if that time is only a fraction of a second.

Games shouldn't end on a penalty, period.

(09-16-2016 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  So why is "clocking" the ball to stop the clock legal? One purpose, and one purpose only. To give the trailing team a better chance to catch up, so fans will remain engaged until the very end, and won't change the channel.

Fair and logical have nothing to do with it.

Actually there is a specific rule that allows "clocking," just like there is a specific rule that allows the holder on a FG or XP to touch the ball, with his knee on the ground, and not be called down. The rule allows you to clock the ball if it is directly under center, right after the snap. However, for example, if you first look to pass the ball, then decide to clock it, you will get a penalty.

Two things are worth mentioning:

1) One, although they did not apply the rule correctly (and no one else knew then they did it incorrectly, on either sideline, or in the booth until a former ref on twitter later pointed it out), the reason I can why it's justified is that they intentionally grounded the ball to avoid punting it. Thus, if using "fairness" as a threshold, I can see why people think it should be changed.

2) Most importantly, the turnover DID NOT win the game for CMU. It gave them zero points. And further, it's not like they got a new set of downs, or even got the ball on the goal line, or even in the redzone for that matter. They had to 50+ yards to win... on one play... when Oklahoma State KNEW a hail-mary was coming, and they got it done.

I'd also like to add, it's not even like Oklahoma State protested the call, or made them aware of the error. It's not like CMU scores while Okie State was still fuming, because of a blown call or something, and not paying attention. They just went along with it. So it's not like when, say the Duke/Miami game last year, where Duke was yelling at the top of their lungs of how bad the call was. They only got mad afterward when they found out, like everyone else, the correct rule, then pretended they were upset the entire time.

I feel no sympathy.

(09-16-2016 02:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Two things are worth mentioning:

1) One, although they did not apply the rule correctly (and no one else knew then they did it incorrectly, on either sideline, or in the booth until a former ref on twitter later pointed it out), the reason I can why it's justified is that they intentionally grounded the ball to avoid punting it. Thus, if using "fairness" as a threshold, I can see why people think it should be changed.

2) Most importantly, the turnover DID NOT win the game for CMU. It gave them zero points. And further, it's not like they got a new set of downs, or even got the ball on the goal line, or even in the redzone for that matter. They had to 50+ yards to win... on one play... when Oklahoma State KNEW a hail-mary was coming, and they got it done.

I'd also like to add, it's not even like Oklahoma State protested the call, or made them aware of the error. It's not like CMU scores while Okie State was still fuming, because of a blown call or something, and not paying attention. They just went along with it. So it's not like when, say the Duke/Miami game last year, where Duke was yelling at the top of their lungs of how bad the call was. They only got mad afterward when they found out, like everyone else, the correct rule, then pretended they were upset the entire time.

I feel no sympathy.

To be honest, I have a hard time feeling sympathetic when OK State stunk up the joint bad enough for 60 minutes that just one more play could cost them the game.

(09-16-2016 11:06 AM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  RE: Clock would have run out either way. Other than taking a knee, plays never take less than 4 seconds.

1) Is that also in the rule book? Quick! Somebody get Mike Pereira on the line!

2) So you are saying the OSU QB should have eaten the ball and the game would have been over. But he didn't, because he didn't want to take that chance. So he (unknowingly) threw the ball in an illegal manner.

With your Chippewa glasses on, you have trouble with simple mathematical concepts, like the fact that actions take time. This is not Dr. Who.

There are lots of breaks either way in every game. Referees aren't infallible. They just rarely blow it at the end of the game and even more rarely because they are incompetent with regards to the rule book. CMU isn't going to give the win back and nobody expects them to. But to deny y'all got a lucky break is just ridiculous.

At the same time, since you pulled the same stunt two years ago against WKU, the TD was not all lucky.

(09-16-2016 02:49 PM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 02:32 PM)adcorbett Wrote:  Two things are worth mentioning:

1) One, although they did not apply the rule correctly (and no one else knew then they did it incorrectly, on either sideline, or in the booth until a former ref on twitter later pointed it out), the reason I can why it's justified is that they intentionally grounded the ball to avoid punting it. Thus, if using "fairness" as a threshold, I can see why people think it should be changed.

2) Most importantly, the turnover DID NOT win the game for CMU. It gave them zero points. And further, it's not like they got a new set of downs, or even got the ball on the goal line, or even in the redzone for that matter. They had to 50+ yards to win... on one play... when Oklahoma State KNEW a hail-mary was coming, and they got it done.

I'd also like to add, it's not even like Oklahoma State protested the call, or made them aware of the error. It's not like CMU scores while Okie State was still fuming, because of a blown call or something, and not paying attention. They just went along with it. So it's not like when, say the Duke/Miami game last year, where Duke was yelling at the top of their lungs of how bad the call was. They only got mad afterward when they found out, like everyone else, the correct rule, then pretended they were upset the entire time.

I feel no sympathy.

To be honest, I have a hard time feeling sympathetic when OK State stunk up the joint bad enough for 60 minutes that just one more play could cost them the game.

And Gundy got a unbelievable gift win last year vs. UT in the only game I have ever seen that was so horribly refereed that it made me seriously wonder if the refs were being paid. So Karma.

But the rule is just fine the way it is.

Quote:Why didn't they just take a knee? The whole thing was stupid.

Because it was 4th down, so the clock would stop right as he did it. Kind of like throwing the ball away, but instant. So he'd need to (gasp) scramble backwards and then take a knee for the 4s to expire. Yes, pretty darn easy. Any DII team could have done that 100% successfully. He got it out of shotgun, head start with an offensive line in front of him - lol.

He could have just scrambled out of the pocket in 1 second and THEN thrown it away (not IG). Their game-plan wasn't IG. The QB was too hasty.

Quote:the game was over (or should have been) because time had expired while the leading team was still in possession of the ball.

No, it shouldn't have been because of that. Time expired DUE to a penalty made by the team. If the team was losing, obviously the penalty would be declined, game over. They could make THAT automatic to not waste the time of asking the winning team if they want to accept it, to avoid miscommunication. But the leading team making the penalty -- the game shouldn't end because they used a penalty Against Them to burn off the clock, hence winning the game.

Re: With your Chippewa glasses on, you have trouble with simple mathematical concepts, like the fact that actions take time. This is not Dr. Who.

Yet even Dr. Who knows when the defense commits a penalty with the lead and there is 0:00 left on the clock, one additional play is run by the offense with 0:00 left on the clock.

Why should an offense who commits a penalty be exempt? Because they are prettier than the defense?

For the life of me, I can't fathom why you are in support of an inadequately written rule. If you maintain that dogmatic point of view, some bad karma may occur to your team involving a similar circumstance. (Such as your opponent's QB fumbling the snap and you lose the game because none of your players could get to the ball due to being illegally held.)

Quote:Yet even Dr. Who knows when the defense commits a penalty with the lead and there is 0:00 left on the clock, one additional play is run by the offense with 0:00 left on the clock.

Exactly. Green Bay @ Detroit last year.

They run plays with 0:00 left on the clock -- it's not a super-rare event, when a penalty occurred DURING/OF the play in which time expired at the end of the play. You only hear about it at the end of a half (1st or 2nd) if a big play occurs post-penalty when 0:00 was left. So someone needs to take off their anti-MAC or pro-OKSt glasses and see that time running out DUE to a penalty OFFICIALLY does not necessarily mean the half is over.

Quote:For the life of me, I can't fathom why you are in support of an inadequately written rule.

I know, it makes me scratch my head as well. What's the justification? You're rewarding a team that's trying to run out the clock TO WIN, by winning off a penalty that allowed them TO run out the clock.

IMO, the best simplest rule while nixing the barely-known-flawed-2009 rule that OKSt fans are whining about -- while avoiding the concept of "who's in the lead" and making any conscious determination of who-benefits:

- NEW RULE: When there's less than 2m left in a half, and a penalty is called during a play, the non-penalized team can choose to accept the penalty *AND ALSO* choose whether or not to reset the game-clock to the point in which the play began.

Now, this isn't necessary, of course. But I think it helps in time management, and would be interesting (and would prevent the CMU/OKSt issue too; CMU would have had it with 4s).

The simplest one would be nixing the current applied-in-2009-without-it-in-mind rule and saying: A half cannot end on an accepted penalty.

There is no logical reason to fetishize seconds at the end of a game (or half) moreso than any other seconds of a game.

So, the only rule that would allow CMU an untimed down and would make logical sense would be a rule that says "if any play ends in an accepted penalty, after the penalty is enforced the game clock shall be re-set to what it was at the start of that play". IOW's, all plays that include an accepted penalty are regarded as untimed downs/plays.

That should apply to all accepted penalty plays, not just those at the end of a game.

Quote:There is no logical reason to fetishize seconds at the end of a game (or half) moreso than any other seconds of a game.

Well, sure... if time's running out for you, it means something, as opposed to the middle of the 3rd Q...

Quote:IOW's, all plays that include an accepted penalty are regarded as untimed downs/plays.

I like something similar: The team accepting the penalty, with 2m or less left, can choose whether:

(a) They reset the game clock to the beginning of the play that resulted in the penalty

OR

(b) They let the game clock be where it is after the play finished

So in CMU's case, they'd choose to have the game clock go back to when that play started -- 4s. But if the situation were different, and OKSt was marching to try and win it, with less than a minute to go, and OKSt got a holding call -- CMU would accept the holding call penalty and let the clock be where it was at the end of the play, giving OKSt less time for their comeback.

One caveat to this rule (and yours) -- would be what if the penalty happened After the ball was put into play? Like say, they scramble around in the back field and then hand it off, the runner goes 10 yards, but 10 yards in, they get penalized for a chop-block (10 seconds elapsed)... which after the chop-block, the runner zig-zags and goes another 10 yards, burning another 6 seconds. The spot of the foul is where the ball would be placed, then penalty yards subtracted... yet six more seconds elapsed after the penalty occurred. Right up & until the point of foul, there was nothing done wrong or allowing him to get that far. So to be Truly Fair, you'd reset the game-clock to the point of the foul, after the ball was in play, before the existence of a penalty. The penalty doesn't take away from him moving the ball 10 yards down field. So you'd set the game-clock 6 seconds back, not 16 seconds for the full play in this after-the-balls-in-play foul.

All this would be 100% fair & reasonable in my book, but complicated.

Which is why I don't think people have to anti-fetishize about having a play being run at 0:00. It happens off penalties sometimes, and it's not all that rare. And reasonable. The stink is about taking away from it when it's turnover on downs -- which IMO, probably assumes the turnover on downs is done by the Losing team... but that wasn't the case in that game, hence, it's a bad rule to apply and goes against common sense (hence, the newer/odd 2009 rule not coming to the mind of the officials OR OKSt's coach).

IMO, the simplest one would be not having a half end on an accepted penalty, no matter who the culprit. Although not the purest for sticklers, it's still 100% simple & fair, and can't be exploited.

(09-16-2016 10:09 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:There is no logical reason to fetishize seconds at the end of a game (or half) moreso than any other seconds of a game.

Well, sure... if time's running out for you, it means something, as opposed to the middle of the 3rd Q...

Quote:IOW's, all plays that include an accepted penalty are regarded as untimed downs/plays.

I like something similar: The team accepting the penalty, with 2m or less left, can choose whether:

(a) They reset the game clock to the beginning of the play that resulted in the penalty

OR

(b) They let the game clock be where it is after the play finished

Interesting ideas, but I still disagree. IMO, giving the team that was victimized by a penalty control over the clock is giving them too much. They already have the choice to take the result of the play or have the play redone with a penalty assessed, IMO that is enough. So I would prefer just a blanket rule about the clock being reset on an accepted penalty. That would just be a factor the team would have to contemplate when deciding whether to take the result of the play, or the penalty walkoff.

The only thing that would change my mind is if you could show that my rule about the clock always re-setting on an accepted penalty gives a penalizing team an incentive to commit a penalty to save time in a way that makes them better off than had they not committed the penalty. In the example you gave, the team committing the holding foul would not be better off with the game clock reset to the start of the play than had they not committed holding. They would be worse off, the next play would start with the same amount of time that was on the clock before the original snap, but with the offense 10 yards further away from their goal thanks to the holding walkoff.

Also, I don't like the "last two minutes" caveat. That fetishizes some seconds over others. IMO the integrity of the game demands that all seconds be treated equally.

This loss is on OSU. They could not execute running out the clock. They didn't know the rule book to protest the decision at the end of the game. (Shame on the officials and the replay officials for not knowing the rule book.) And, they could defend the Hail Mary. I'm not a fan of either team . . .

Quote:Also, I don't like the "last two minutes" caveat. That fetishizes some seconds over others. IMO the integrity of the game demands that all seconds be treated equally.

Well, it's how it is now though, in terms of going out of bounds. The clock only permanently stops under 2m to make college play not easily get to 3.5+ hours, but kept under 2m for time management.

Quote:IMO, giving the team that was victimized by a penalty control over the clock is giving them too much.

I don't think it's that much. Basically, by your rationale, there's nothing wrong with resetting the game-clock to the point of the snap every single time an accepted penalty is had. So if doing that but ALSO LETTING the clock be what it was at the end of the play regardless, as it is now, by choice of penalty acceptor in 2m or less left -- there isn't any more power than what happens by default today (not resetting the clock).

What it does is resolves what the 2009-rule tried to make better by assumption. Depending on the situation, one should stop the clock or let it run, depending on who's leading, advantages, etc., when pulling stunts for purposeful or highly-probably penalties resulting.

Quote:The only thing that would change my mind is if you could show that my rule about the clock always re-setting on an accepted penalty gives a penalizing team an incentive to commit a penalty to save time in a way that makes them better off than had they not committed the penalty.

I'm the losing team. I'm desperate. I'm willing to risk penalties. No time will have elapsed if I get called on it. I'm in desperation mode and there's hardly any time. If it pushes me back to make long passes, so be it. I need to get in FG range or in the end-zone. It gives me multiple chances in some rare circumstances. Me thinking of doing this, the other team can say don't reset the game-clock, go by old-school rules to let it have run (2m or less in the half). This lets me know I can't play that trick. It eliminates me from having "too much power" undeserved.

(09-17-2016 02:03 PM)toddjnsn Wrote:  

Quote:Also, I don't like the "last two minutes" caveat. That fetishizes some seconds over others. IMO the integrity of the game demands that all seconds be treated equally.

Well, it's how it is now though, in terms of going out of bounds. The clock only permanently stops under 2m to make college play not easily get to 3.5+ hours, but kept under 2m for time management.

Quote:IMO, giving the team that was victimized by a penalty control over the clock is giving them too much.

I don't think it's that much. Basically, by your rationale, there's nothing wrong with resetting the game-clock to the point of the snap every single time an accepted penalty is had. So if doing that but ALSO LETTING the clock be what it was at the end of the play regardless, as it is now, by choice of penalty acceptor in 2m or less left -- there isn't any more power than what happens by default today (not resetting the clock).

What it does is resolves what the 2009-rule tried to make better by assumption. Depending on the situation, one should stop the clock or let it run, depending on who's leading, advantages, etc., when pulling stunts for purposeful or highly-probably penalties resulting.

Quote:The only thing that would change my mind is if you could show that my rule about the clock always re-setting on an accepted penalty gives a penalizing team an incentive to commit a penalty to save time in a way that makes them better off than had they not committed the penalty.

I'm the losing team. I'm desperate. I'm willing to risk penalties. No time will have elapsed if I get called on it. I'm in desperation mode and there's hardly any time. If it pushes me back to make long passes, so be it. I need to get in FG range or in the end-zone. It gives me multiple chances in some rare circumstances. Me thinking of doing this, the other team can say don't reset the game-clock, go by old-school rules to let it have run (2m or less in the half). This lets me know I can't play that trick. It eliminates me from having "too much power" undeserved.

Concerning points 1 and part of 2 (the other part of 2 i simply could not understand after three times reading it), I know that the rules do privilege the last two minutes, and I disagree with that too. Like in the NFL, when in the last two minutes the booth could automatically review plays even if a team was out of challenges. Didn't like that either.

As for point 3, as I said, unless you can show that resetting the clock will make the penalized team better off than had a penalty not been called, I don't see why the clock shouldn't be reset. The mindset you describe of flagrantly committing penalties will not pay off, because you will just keep moving backwards, away from FG range not towards it. In effect, on an accepted penalty, the play didn't happen so clock should not run.

(09-16-2016 05:32 PM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  Re: With your Chippewa glasses on, you have trouble with simple mathematical concepts, like the fact that actions take time. This is not Dr. Who.

Yet even Dr. Who knows when the defense commits a penalty with the lead and there is 0:00 left on the clock, one additional play is run by the offense with 0:00 left on the clock.

Why should an offense who commits a penalty be exempt? Because they are prettier than the defense?

For the life of me, I can't fathom why you are in support of an inadequately written rule. If you maintain that dogmatic point of view, some bad karma may occur to your team involving a similar circumstance. (Such as your opponent's QB fumbling the snap and you lose the game because none of your players could get to the ball due to being illegally held.)

Because the rule is a special exception for when the defense commits a penalty. You don't have to agree with it, but you have to be pretty biased to at least not understand the concept. Its for a situation like a pass interference in the end zone. Its not some blanket rule that games can't end in penalties. The rule is written perfectly well for the specific situations it is intended for.