NCAA Foootball 2017

[MadBurgerMaker]

Ugh that's a bad pick by Costello.  And oof there's nice a hit on the TCU WR. 

E:   Huh.  That's odd.  Stanford punt returner/WR changes numbers just for special teams plays, then goes back to his usual number when on offense. 

E2:  21-3 now.  Nice.  Patterson is just dumping sweat everywhere.

[alfred russel]

Yeah, a longer off-season and less total football would be the result of simply cutting back on the number of bowls.  To compensate, I think I'd be in favor of going back to 13 regular season games.

It would be something to check to make sure, but 13 would probably help with some of these crappy schedules where teams in the same conference only play each other for, what is it, like 4 years in the SEC?  Big 10 might be like that too. 

Would you expand the playoffs as well?

13 games is too many. I realize this is not really in the spirit of our times, but aren't these players supposed to be students? If it was up to me, we would go back to an 11 game season and we would drop the conference championship games. I realize the latter move is all but impossible now because we have obnoxiously large conferences, but it is what it is.

I'd suggest an 8 team playoff as well - yes that adds an extra game, but a 4 team playoff in a sport with 130 or so teams isn't reasonable imo. With 8 teams you could let the major conferences play their way in and just have a handful of spots picked by a committee.

[alfred russel]

I think there actually is a way to get more competitive out of conference scheduling: don't allow conferences to sell the rights to out of conference games. As it stands, teams don't really give a shit about TV money when scheduling, because they just get their cut from the conference. But if the teams had to sell their own TV rights, suddenly they would get a lot more bank from putting together compelling contests.

[dps]

Yeah, a longer off-season and less total football would be the result of simply cutting back on the number of bowls.  To compensate, I think I'd be in favor of going back to 13 regular season games.

It would be something to check to make sure, but 13 would probably help with some of these crappy schedules where teams in the same conference only play each other for, what is it, like 4 years in the SEC?  Big 10 might be like that too. 

Would you expand the playoffs as well?

13 games is too many. I realize this is not really in the spirit of our times, but aren't these players supposed to be students? If it was up to me, we would go back to an 11 game season and we would drop the conference championship games. I realize the latter move is all but impossible now because we have obnoxiously large conferences, but it is what it is.

I'd suggest an 8 team playoff as well - yes that adds an extra game, but a 4 team playoff in a sport with 130 or so teams isn't reasonable imo. With 8 teams you could let the major conferences play their way in and just have a handful of spots picked by a committee.

Well, I was speaking earlier just from the standpoint of being a football fan, but yes, there certainly is an argument that if we're really interested in academics we should go to a shorter schedule.  OTOH, if we're really all that interested in academics, maybe we ought to just abolish intercollegiate athletics entirely (which isn't going to happen, because it brings in too much money, or at least football and basketball do).

And FWIW, I do think that conferences are too large;  I'd prefer smaller conferences where all the conference members actually played each other every year, which would eliminate any actual need for conference championship games, but those games are too profitable for the conferences to get rid of them.  I do hold out some hope that the overly-large (IMO) conferences we have right now will prove so unwieldy that we'll get back to smaller conferences, but they'll still keep the championship games.

In general, I'm not opposed to expanding the playoffs, but I have concerns about how the powers that be might go about it.

[MadBurgerMaker]

The Alamo Bowl is a helluva game. 

[Berkut]

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.

Most people seem to think this was a brilliant play.

I think it is fucking stupid.

Purdue, from now on, will never get the benefit of being able to take a knee. Defenses will fire off and hammer them, because who knows, maybe they aren't REALLY taking a knee. This will then result in fights, and injuries.

The key to me is whether or not anyone on Purdue actually told the officials they were taking a knee. If they did not, and just lined up in the "take a knee" formation, then Arizona has nothing to complain about. It is still a bush league, stupid play, but not illegal.

If they told the officials they were taking a knee, they should have blown the play dead at the least if they communicated that to the defense.

[MadBurgerMaker]

I thought at some point there were rules put into place where when you do that, it's just automatically considered a kneel down and you can't run a play out of it.  Or was that the NFL?

[Berkut]

No, there is no such rule, at least in college there is not.

[alfred russel]

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.

So basically you are just going to make up your own rules? I have three ideas:

1) If a team tells you what play they are going to run, don't tell the other team. That is grossly inappropriate. If they want to tell the other team their plays, that is their business, but the official shouldn't be involved in that.
2) Call the play as it happens. If they didn't false start, don't call a false start. If the runner isn't down, don't call him down.
3) Assuming someone told the official there was going to be a kneel down, you don't know that the person was misleading the official. There are up to 100 players and coaches on the field. The person telling the official may not have known about the fake - it is even conceivable the team had that trick play available and the players may have audibled to it. It is preposterous to decide that if someone on a team at some point tells an official that a certain play will be run and for whatever reason a different play is run - that the play is dead and there is a penalty. An official can not dictate what play is going to be run to a quarterback and call a penalty if something else is run.

[MadBurgerMaker]

E: ^^If someone tells an official that they're taking a knee to end the half, then they need to take the knee.  If someone tells an official they're throwing a pass, then run (or whatever other scenario that doesn't involve intentionally ending the half or game), they're just being stupid^^

No defense game in the Belk Bowl. 38-28 Wake Forest over TAMU at the half.

No, there is no such rule, at least in college there is not.

Ah it seems to be if they "simulate" taking the knee. 

[Berkut]

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.

So basically you are just going to make up your own rules?

Well, no. I am not sure where you got that idea.

I have three ideas:

1) If a team tells you what play they are going to run, don't tell the other team. That is grossly inappropriate. If they want to tell the other team their plays, that is their business, but the official shouldn't be involved in that.

Preventing injury is certainly entirely appropriate, and if they don't want me to tell the other team, they should not tell me. There is no reason for them to tell me UNLESS they want me to tell the other team - that is the only point of doing so. And in fact, I don't think in nearly 20 years of officiating, I've ever had someone tell me what play they were going to run except in this rather particular situation.

2) Call the play as it happens. If they didn't false start, don't call a false start. If the runner isn't down, don't call him down.

And if the play is an abuse of sportsmanship, I will call that as well. As it happens.

3) Assuming someone told the official there was going to be a kneel down, you don't know that the person was misleading the official.

Misleading the officials is not part of the game, and is unsporting. We are not part of the interaction and attempts to deceive the other team, and trying to use us as such is unsporting.

Just like trying to use the substitution procedure to deceive the other team about whether a player replaced or not, or eligible or not. There is deceipt in football of course, but that doesn't mean that all deceit is part of the game.

There are up to 100 players and coaches on the field.

Hopefully not! We try to limit it to just 22 on the field, and none of them should be coaches.

The person telling the official may not have known about the fake

So? It is unsporting whether they know or not. If a coach sends a 12th player on the field, and they don't know they are the 12th, should we ignore it since they weren't aware?

- it is even conceivable the team had that trick play available and the players may have audibled to it.

Then don't tell the official you are going to take a knee, if you want the option to audible out of taking a knee.

It is preposterous to decide that if someone on a team at some point tells an official that a certain play will be run and for whatever reason a different play is run - that the play is dead and there is a penalty. An official can not dictate what play is going to be run to a quarterback and call a penalty if something else is run.

Sure we can. This is not just some random play, this is a very particular circumstance where there is a courtesy involved in making sure nobody gets hurt on a meaningless play, and to make sure that in contested games where someone might be inclined to take a cheap shot and start a melee, we can control the situation. That is why we are instructed to act in the manner described above. Because that is what most coaches and administrators want - nobody to get hurt or fights to break out on otherwise meaningless plays. And most of them understand that it is pretty shitty to try to take advantage of that courtesy.

If they don't want us to do that, they can of course simply tell us not to do that, and in that case we won't administer announced kneels in that manner. But what we clearly cannot do is allow for the courtesy of the offense having the ability to announce a kneel with the expectation that we will then instruct the defense to not fire off, then use that announcement to deceive the defense and run a play.

You think this is just about football, and there is more to it than that - these is a real effort to reduce injuries and stop bullshit in games. In highly emotional games, those last few plays when the outcome is decided can be problematic.

Of course, if the situation is such that the defense declines to accept that, they have that right as well. But again, I expect THEM to make that clear for the same reasons - so everyone can protect themselves.

I know as a fan you are all "Let them kill each other for mah entertainment!" but officials and the people in charge of the game have other concerns.

[alfred russel]

Then don't tell the official you are going to take a knee, if you want the option to audible out of taking a knee.

That is not in the rule book. Maybe it should be for injury prevention purposes or for sportsmanship, but it is not there now. This is the Berkut rule invented on the spot.

I also don't see anything unsportsmanlike about player/coach A giving the heads up to an official about what is going to happen, and that being in error either because he had bad information or the situation changed. It is neither ethically unsporting nor is it defined in the rulebook as unsporting.

[derspiess]

What leeway does an NCAA official have to call penalties like Berkut says he would have?  I'm sort of with Berkut in that it was unsporting to go that route and is a black mark on the team, but it sounds like he would be making up the false start (or unsportsmanlike conduct call) out of thin air-- which IMO would be just as dishonest.

Btw I know it's just youth football, but my son's team had a contentious, very physical game this year that ended in a 6-0 win.  We recovered a fumble as the other team was driving on us.  Since there was less than a minute left on the clock and the other team had used all its timeouts, we just knelt down for the last two plays.  The head referee actually told the defense to back up two yards and to not fire off at the snap.  For the last play he even stood between them and the ball.  I don't know if this is all per league rules or not, but it seemed odd.  I was pretty glad he did that, because this team had been all-out blitzing us all day and were exploiting a couple weak spots in our line.  Could've gotten ugly if they nailed our QB as he was kneeling.

[grumbler]

NCAA football rulebook 9-2-3-c

The following are unfair acts:...
c. An obviously unfair act not specifically covered by the rules occurs during the game

PENALTY –
The referee may take any action he considers equitable, which includes directing that the down be repeated, assessing a 15-yard penalty, awarding a score, or suspending or forfeiting the game

https://www.ruletool.info/ncaa-rule-9-conduct-of-players-and-others-subject-to-the-rules/2/

Sounds like the rule book has Berkut's position covered.

[alfred russel]

I don't think it is obviously unfair to run a fake kneel down. I also don't think it is obviously unfair for an unspecified person at an unspecified time to make an unconfirmed statement to the official that the next play will be a kneel down when in fact that doesn't take place.

Unsurprisingly, the officials on the field didn't believe that rule applied in this instance, either. I also haven't heard any conference official's statement that the rules were misapplied at the end of the game.