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.

(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.

(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.

(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 shouldn't they? And what does "should" have to do with it anyway? Are you saying that it would have been OK if the QB had deliberately thrown the ball out of bounds as long as there was a receiver somewhere in the area? Or that a QB shouldn't be allowed to deliberately throw the ball to the ground (that is to say, intentionally ground it) to stop the clock if it is his team that is training as time is about to expire?

That's not to say the actual rule currently in place was applied properly. Just that what you or I may think the rule "should" be isn't relevant.

(09-16-2016 09:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(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 shouldn't they? And what does "should" have to do with it anyway? Are you saying that it would have been OK if the QB had deliberately thrown the ball out of bounds as long as there was a receiver somewhere in the area? Or that a QB shouldn't be allowed to deliberately throw the ball to the ground (that is to say, intentionally ground it) to stop the clock if it is his team that is training as time is about to expire?

That's not to say the actual rule currently in place was applied properly. Just that what you or I may think the rule "should" be isn't relevant.

Those things you are mentioning isn't intentional grounding. What OSU did was. Thats the difference.

(09-16-2016 10:18 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 09:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(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 shouldn't they? And what does "should" have to do with it anyway? Are you saying that it would have been OK if the QB had deliberately thrown the ball out of bounds as long as there was a receiver somewhere in the area? Or that a QB shouldn't be allowed to deliberately throw the ball to the ground (that is to say, intentionally ground it) to stop the clock if it is his team that is training as time is about to expire?

That's not to say the actual rule currently in place was applied properly. Just that what you or I may think the rule "should" be isn't relevant.

Those things you are mentioning isn't intentional grounding. What OSU did was. Thats the difference.

How does that address what I said?

(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.

The result of the play - penalty or not - was change of possession. That put the ball in the hands of the team that was trying to score.

Also worth noting: the NFL and many high school leagues have a rule against "palpably unfair acts" which would allow the OP.

I present to you, members of the jury, the video evidence for you to justify using JURY NULLIFICATION in removing the word, TAINTED, from Central Michigan's victory over Oklahoma State.

Let's show the final four seconds of regulation. Notice the Cowboy quarterback is throwing the ball away as a Chippewa player tackles him with between 1 and 2 seconds left in the game. If he doesn't intentionally ground the ball, change of possession occurs with time left on the clock.

But he DOES intentionally ground the ball. It would be an INJUSTICE to allow a team to commit a penalty to seal a victory.

Members of the jury, I rest my case.

(09-16-2016 10:37 AM)Hokie Mark 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.

The result of the play - penalty or not - was change of possession. That put the ball in the hands of the team that was trying to score.

Also worth noting: the NFL and many high school leagues have a rule against "palpably unfair acts" which would allow the OP.

But the clock was at zero.

(09-16-2016 10:50 AM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  I present to you, members of the jury, the video evidence for you to justify using JURY NULLIFICATION in removing the word, TAINTED, from Central Michigan's victory over Oklahoma State.

Let's show the final four seconds of regulation. Notice the Cowboy quarterback is throwing the ball away as a Chippewa player tackles him with between 1 and 2 seconds left in the game. If he doesn't intentionally ground the ball, change of possession occurs with time left on the clock.

But he DOES intentionally ground the ball. It would be an INJUSTICE to allow a team to commit a penalty to seal a victory.

Members of the jury, I rest my case.

Clock would have run out either way. Other than taking a knee, plays never take less than 4 seconds.

(09-16-2016 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:37 AM)Hokie Mark 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.

The result of the play - penalty or not - was change of possession. That put the ball in the hands of the team that was trying to score.

Also worth noting: the NFL and many high school leagues have a rule against "palpably unfair acts" which would allow the OP.

But the clock was at zero.

But it was a penalty that would have resulted in a change of possession. Hence the untimed down. All penalties should be enforced. You shouldn't be rewarded by committing a penalty.

(09-16-2016 10:36 AM)ken d Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:18 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 09:54 AM)ken d Wrote:  

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

(09-16-2016 09:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  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 shouldn't they? And what does "should" have to do with it anyway? Are you saying that it would have been OK if the QB had deliberately thrown the ball out of bounds as long as there was a receiver somewhere in the area? Or that a QB shouldn't be allowed to deliberately throw the ball to the ground (that is to say, intentionally ground it) to stop the clock if it is his team that is training as time is about to expire?

That's not to say the actual rule currently in place was applied properly. Just that what you or I may think the rule "should" be isn't relevant.

Those things you are mentioning isn't intentional grounding. What OSU did was. Thats the difference.

How does that address what I said?

Should has to do with everything. You shouldn't hit a player in the head with your helmet. You shouldn't hold a players jersey while blocking. You shouldn't be on the other side of the line of scrimmage before the ball is snapped. Should and shouldn't are why there are rules in the first place.

(09-16-2016 10:55 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:37 AM)Hokie Mark 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.

The result of the play - penalty or not - was change of possession. That put the ball in the hands of the team that was trying to score.

Also worth noting: the NFL and many high school leagues have a rule against "palpably unfair acts" which would allow the OP.

But the clock was at zero.

But it was a penalty that would have resulted in a change of possession. Hence the untimed down. All penalties should be enforced. You shouldn't be rewarded by committing a penalty.

You shouldn't add time to the clock except in extreme circumstances. All rules (like a 60 minute game) should be enforced.

What many fans are trying to do in this case is to apply standards of logic or fairness to rules in an athletic contest. Neither of those standards are relevant, and neither of them are goals for rules makers.

I had always understood the rule to be that a half (or game) could not end on a defensive penalty unless the penalty was declined. Maybe that's accurate, and maybe it's not. But rules about intent - whether they be about passes in football, or about fouls in basketball - are anything but logically consistent or fair.

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.

Fair and logical have nothing to do with it.

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.

(09-16-2016 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  What many fans are trying to do in this case is to apply standards of logic or fairness to rules in an athletic contest. Neither of those standards are relevant, and neither of them are goals for rules makers.

I had always understood the rule to be that a half (or game) could not end on a defensive penalty unless the penalty was declined. Maybe that's accurate, and maybe it's not. But rules about intent - whether they be about passes in football, or about fouls in basketball - are anything but logically consistent or fair.

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.

Fair and logical have nothing to do with it.

Good argument, except regarding the rules allowing "clocking" the ball. In a nuanced way there IS a penalty: you lose a down. Except if you were COLORADO playing MISSOURI in the infamous five-down fiasco.

(09-16-2016 11:10 AM)Okie Chippewa Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 11:00 AM)ken d Wrote:  What many fans are trying to do in this case is to apply standards of logic or fairness to rules in an athletic contest. Neither of those standards are relevant, and neither of them are goals for rules makers.

I had always understood the rule to be that a half (or game) could not end on a defensive penalty unless the penalty was declined. Maybe that's accurate, and maybe it's not. But rules about intent - whether they be about passes in football, or about fouls in basketball - are anything but logically consistent or fair.

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.

Fair and logical have nothing to do with it.

Good argument, except regarding the rules allowing "clocking" the ball. In a nuanced way there IS a penalty: you lose a down. Except if you were COLORADO playing MISSOURI in the infamous five-down fiasco.

There is a penalty, but there is also a reward for clocking the ball. Stopping the clock is more to the advantage of the team doing it than the loss of down is disadvantageous. If rules shouldn't reward teams for committing an infraction, why allow this?

(09-16-2016 10:59 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:55 AM)RutgersGuy Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:51 AM)bullet Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 10:37 AM)Hokie Mark Wrote:  

(09-16-2016 09:00 AM)bullet Wrote:  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.

The result of the play - penalty or not - was change of possession. That put the ball in the hands of the team that was trying to score.

Also worth noting: the NFL and many high school leagues have a rule against "palpably unfair acts" which would allow the OP.

But the clock was at zero.

But it was a penalty that would have resulted in a change of possession. Hence the untimed down. All penalties should be enforced. You shouldn't be rewarded by committing a penalty.

You shouldn't add time to the clock except in extreme circumstances. All rules (like a 60 minute game) should be enforced.

Untimed downs are given when defenses commit a penalty at the end of games.

Good grief.

OSU should have simply run the ball, or the QB could take off backwards and then go down after the clock ran down. They didn't. Then, they failed to defend a hail Mary and lateral. They should have won the game, but most of the blame for why they didn't falls on them.

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.