NCAA Foootball 2017

[sbr]

 He's a grade A asshole.

[dps]

Why? It is clear you know nothing about how football is officiated, and don't care to learn.

You start this with a hypothetical scenario that the officials told Arizona not to rush

No, this conversation started with him posting that Arizona is claiming that the ref told them not to rush.  That's not a hypothetical, it's a fact that Arizona is claiming that.

Since then, Berkut has been telling us how the ref would communicate to Arizona that Perdue had told the officials that they were taking a knee, it you would bother to pay attention.  There has been speculation as to whether or not Perdue actually told the officials that they were taking a knee or not, which does enter into discussion of hypotheticals, but that's not where Berkut started.

[alfred russel]

No, this conversation started with him posting that Arizona is claiming that the ref told them not to rush.  That's not a hypothetical, it's a fact that Arizona is claiming that.

Sorry dude, it was a straight up hypothetical.

Here is the section of Berkut's initial post on the topic. Notice all the uses of "if" before he offers what he would do "if" in such a situation. He created a hypothetical reality based on an assumption that the Arizona player was telling the truth, put himself in a hypothetical situation where he was an official responding to that reality, then told us what he would do.

SO with a minute left in the Purdue-Arizona bowl game, Arizona fumbled the ball. Purdue recovered at their 32.

They snapped the ball with 56 seconds left, lined up in the "victory" formation. They faked the kneel to run out the clock, and handed the ball off while the Arizona players did not fire off, and gained 30 yards. They then kicked a field goal...which ended up being the difference in the game.

So RichRod and Arizona players claim that the officials told them that Purdue was taking a knee, and hence they should not fire off.

Now, as an official, if a team *tells me* they are taking a knee, I tell the defense they are taking a knee. I then tell the QB "Take the snap, and go directly to your knee". If he does ANYTHING else, I am blowing the play dead and assessing either a false start if I feel nice, or a 15 yard unsportsmanlike if I don't.

[dps]

No, this conversation started with him posting that Arizona is claiming that the ref told them not to rush.  That's not a hypothetical, it's a fact that Arizona is claiming that.

Sorry dude, it was a straight up hypothetical.

Here is the section of Berkut's initial post on the topic. Notice all the uses of "if" before he offers what he would do "if" in such a situation. He created a hypothetical reality based on an assumption that the Arizona player was telling the truth, put himself in a hypothetical situation where he was an official responding to that reality, then told us what he would do.

SO with a minute left in the Purdue-Arizona bowl game, Arizona fumbled the ball. Purdue recovered at their 32.

They snapped the ball with 56 seconds left, lined up in the "victory" formation. They faked the kneel to run out the clock, and handed the ball off while the Arizona players did not fire off, and gained 30 yards. They then kicked a field goal...which ended up being the difference in the game.

So RichRod and Arizona players claim that the officials told them that Purdue was taking a knee, and hence they should not fire off.

Now, as an official, if a team *tells me* they are taking a knee, I tell the defense they are taking a knee. I then tell the QB "Take the snap, and go directly to your knee". If he does ANYTHING else, I am blowing the play dead and assessing either a false start if I feel nice, or a 15 yard unsportsmanlike if I don't.

There are 3 PARAGRAPHS before the "if", so it's not the start of the conversation.  And the section with the "if" does not set up a hypothetical situation in which the officials tell Arizona anything--it explains what an official does if the offense tells him that they are taking knee, without addressing whether or not Perdue told the officials that or not.  Again, if you'd bother to pay attention, he's telling you how officials handle the situation when it arises. 

[grumbler]

Sorry dude, it was a straight up hypothetical.

Here is the section of Berkut's initial post on the topic. Notice all the uses of "if" before he offers what he would do "if" in such a situation. He created a hypothetical reality based on an assumption that the Arizona player was telling the truth, put himself in a hypothetical situation where he was an official responding to that reality, then told us what he would do.

SO with a minute left in the Purdue-Arizona bowl game, Arizona fumbled the ball. Purdue recovered at their 32.

They snapped the ball with 56 seconds left, lined up in the "victory" formation. They faked the kneel to run out the clock, and handed the ball off while the Arizona players did not fire off, and gained 30 yards. They then kicked a field goal...which ended up being the difference in the game.

So RichRod and Arizona players claim that the officials told them that Purdue was taking a knee, and hence they should not fire off.

Now, as an official, if a team *tells me* they are taking a knee, I tell the defense they are taking a knee. I then tell the QB "Take the snap, and go directly to your knee". If he does ANYTHING else, I am blowing the play dead and assessing either a false start if I feel nice, or a 15 yard unsportsmanlike if I don't.

That was the hypothetical that Berkut was refereeing the game.  Surely not even you believe that he was actually doing so!

[alfred russel]

There are 3 PARAGRAPHS before the "if", so it's not the start of the conversation.  And the section with the "if" does not set up a hypothetical situation in which the officials tell Arizona anything--it explains what an official does if the offense tells him that they are taking knee, without addressing whether or not Perdue told the officials that or not. 

My objection, which started this whole stupid sub topic, was to Berkut saying that in the hypothetical situation that he laid out -conditioned by those "ifs" - that he would a) tell the defense, b) tell the QB what to do, c) blow the play dead, d) assess a penalty. I objected to that, as in the hypothetical situation he laid out, he would be acting beyond the scope of the rule book.

Again, if you'd bother to pay attention, he's telling you how officials handle the situation when it arises.

??? He was holding out the potential that the scenario described by the Arizona player is what actually happened during the game. It is definitely NOT how officials handle the situation when it (theoretically) arose, as the officials let Purdue run the play and did not assess them a penalty.

I'm really confused as the mechanism that he would use to communicate to both the defense not to rush and the QB to take a knee.

-He has made clear I'm completely ignorant to how officiating works by theorizing they would yell "no rush" before the snap. Officials can't be yelling things pre snap--for many reasons that isn't proper.
-I guess he would go up to each player on defense and then the QB offense pre snap and communicate individually? That seems far fetched, but since he isn't going to be yelling, not sure how else to do this...
-He could tell the defense team captain pre snap, and make him responsible for telling everyone? LOL.

[katmai]

Adios Rich Rod it seems.

[jimmy olsen]

UCF: goes unbeaten, wins its conference, beats Auburn, and sitting at home.

Alabama: Has a loss, lost its division, lost to Auburn, playing for the championship.

Might have a few more kinks to work out in this playoff business.

They wouldn't have even made the playoff if it was expanded to 8 teams. That's a little nuts.

[Valmy]

They wouldn't have even made the playoff if it was expanded to 8 teams. That's a little nuts.

If they do go to 8, instead of 6, I hope they make it so the best G5 gets an automatic bid every year. On most years that will just give the #1 seed an easy first round game.

[Admiral Yi]

A three game playoff seriously undermines the illusion players have classes to go to.

[Valmy]

A three game playoff seriously undermines the illusion players have classes to go to.

Hey! This would all be during the semester break!

[Berkut]

There are 3 PARAGRAPHS before the "if", so it's not the start of the conversation.  And the section with the "if" does not set up a hypothetical situation in which the officials tell Arizona anything--it explains what an official does if the offense tells him that they are taking knee, without addressing whether or not Perdue told the officials that or not. 

My objection, which started this whole stupid sub topic, was to Berkut saying that in the hypothetical situation that he laid out -conditioned by those "ifs" - that he would a) tell the defense, b) tell the QB what to do, c) blow the play dead, d) assess a penalty. I objected to that, as in the hypothetical situation he laid out, he would be acting beyond the scope of the rule book.

Again, if you'd bother to pay attention, he's telling you how officials handle the situation when it arises.

??? He was holding out the potential that the scenario described by the Arizona player is what actually happened during the game. It is definitely NOT how officials handle the situation when it (theoretically) arose, as the officials let Purdue run the play and did not assess them a penalty.

I'm really confused as the mechanism that he would use to communicate to both the defense not to rush and the QB to take a knee.

-He has made clear I'm completely ignorant to how officiating works by theorizing they would yell "no rush" before the snap. Officials can't be yelling things pre snap--for many reasons that isn't proper.
-I guess he would go up to each player on defense and then the QB offense pre snap and communicate individually? That seems far fetched, but since he isn't going to be yelling, not sure how else to do this...
-He could tell the defense team captain pre snap, and make him responsible for telling everyone? LOL.

My god, is this really that hard?

This is how this works:

1. After the previous play, often even before they have spotted the ball, the HC tells me (if I am on his sideline) or my wing official (if I am not) or his QB (if neither of us are close to him) that they are going to take a knee. If I am close, he will just tell me, if I am far away, he might get my intention and point at his knee, or mime going down on a knee.
1A. If it is the QB, they trot over to me and say "Hey Ref, we are taking a knee".

Time elapsed: less than 5-10 seconds.

The offense knows they are taking a knee, and hence its not like they are in a hurry to get lined up.

2. I will walk up to the LOS, where my umpire is probably spotting the ball for the next play, or it might even already be spotted. The QB is communicating the play with his offense, either in the huddle or if they do not huddle, just in a group.
3. As the offense is strolling to the ball, I tell the DL and LBs, who are all standing right there, something like "They are taking a knee. Protect yourself, but don't do anything stupid." I then turn to the offense as they come up and say "QB, take the snap and go directly to your knee".

This is the deal if you want to announce a kneel. We will make sure nobody gets hurt, you give up the right to advance the ball. If you want to run a fake out of this, go right ahead, just don't say anything to me at all.

There are some situations where I would not be willing to do this - a close game where the defense might want the chance to force a fumble, for example. Then you can take a knee, and we will penalize any cheap shot on the QB once he goes down, but the defense will get to hard rush in the vain hope of the QB muffing the snap or something.

Anyway, at this point there is probably still 20 seconds on the play clock, and the offense isn't even lined up. Me and the U go to our spots (MUCH close to the LOS than normal), and we wait for the play clock to run down and the offense to snap the ball.

There isn't any yelling at anyone. We communicate to the players all the time, in a wide variety of situations. This isn't complicated.

[Berkut]

Adios Rich Rod it seems.

WTF?

He is being fired as a result of claims of some kind of sexual harrassment made by an assistant. The university investigated the claims, and said they were groundless and unsubstantiated.

So why are they now firing him for it?

Gotta be more to this story....

[Berkut]

http://tucson.com/news/local/rich-rodriguez-fired-after-m-notice-of-claim-coach-admits/article_696508d1-d10e-5eff-b873-0993ae0393d5.html

OK, so it would appear that Rich Rod had an affair. And he wanted his assistant to cover it up, which apparently she did.

So the UofA is basically saying there is no basis to the assistants claim (and her recently filed duit demanding $7.5 million) of a hostile workplace, but they fired him for not being nice, and losing 5 out of 6 games. They will be honoring his payout ($6 million) since they acknowledge there is no cause.

OK, I guess that kinda makes sense?

I like that his assistant is claiming she should get seven and half million dollars for such egregious things as

"she "had to walk on eggshells at work, because of (Rodriguez's) volatility and sheer power over the department." Rodriguez would call her at all hours of the night, she said in the claim, to change travel plans or to deal with Rodriguez's personal emergencies. In the claim, the former employee said she became increasingly troubled by Rodriguez's actions over the past year. She suffered migraines as a result, the claim states."

WTF? She is his administrative assistant. I don't know how having a dick for a boss is harassment. I sure hope Arizona doesn't settle, unless there is a hell of a lot more to this claim than bullshit like that.

[crazy canuck]

My objection, which started this whole stupid sub topic, was to Berkut saying that in the hypothetical situation that he laid out -conditioned by those "ifs" - that he would a) tell the defense, b) tell the QB what to do, c) blow the play dead, d) assess a penalty. I objected to that, as in the hypothetical situation he laid out, he would be acting beyond the scope of the rule book.

I have never played football, but in basketball the bad refs are the ones who do not communicate with the players on the court.  There is no rule in the rule book which states the circumstances in which a ref will talk to the players.  But the good ones talk to the players throughout the game. Berkut's hypothetical sounds exactly like the type of communication a player would want to have from the ref.