Perhaps the BEST B1G Forum anywhere, here at College Football Fan Site, CFB51!!!

NCAA mulling in-season action after Oregon's controversial late-game situational move helped Ducks beat Ohio State - Yahoo Sports
NCAA mulling in-season action after Oregon's controversial late-game situational move helped Ducks beat Ohio State - Yahoo Sports

We all saw that coming.  I give Lanning credit for being smart enough to employ the tactic.  Smart boy.

First, credit to Lanning for thinking of it.  It wasn't cheating, that was (and for now still is) the rule, he found a loophole, good for him.  

That said there is something I don't understand so any thoughts would be appreciated:
As I see it, why run only ONE extra guy on the field?  The penalty is "too many" not five yards per extra guy, right?  

As I see it, the big risk is that it gives the offense a free play.  If they see what is going on, they KNOW that the play will be flagged so the QB can throw a ridiculously reckless pass because if it gets intercepted, so what.  That is a risk for the D because what if Howard had thrown for a TD into double (or triple) coverage and tOSU managed to make the play?  Then tOSU declines the penalty and walks off with a win.  

Based on the above, it seems to me that if you are going to do it, shouldn't you send a dozen extra guys out there?  

I gotta say it cracks me up how over-regulated college football is. Like we need another special rule against playing too many players at one time. Imagine the Celtics just put out six guys on defense and the refs all huddle up, unsure how to proceed.

I gotta say it cracks me up how over-regulated college football is. Like we need another special rule against playing too many players at one time. Imagine the Celtics just put out six guys on defense and the refs all huddle up, unsure how to proceed.

I'm all for eliminating/reducing/minimizing rules that have subjective interpretations.

But when it comes to stopping people from intentionally cheating/gaming the system and exhibiting poor sportsmanship, I'm fine with implementing new rules to close up loopholes.  And the fix for something like this would be pretty simple. The rule is already in place, the enforcement of the penalty can be altered to allow the offense to put the time back on the clock.  Nothing subjective, no controversy there.

I'm all for eliminating/reducing/minimizing rules that have subjective interpretations.

But when it comes to stopping people from intentionally cheating/gaming the system and exhibiting poor sportsmanship, I'm fine with implementing new rules to close up loopholes.  And the fix for something like this would be pretty simple. The rule is already in place, the enforcement of the penalty can be altered to allow the offense to put the time back on the clock.  Nothing subjective, no controversy there.

yup, the clock stops on a defensive penalty
make it a pre-snap penalty

Seems like a simple solution would be to give the offense the choice of putting time back on the clock.  I'm trying to think of any negative externalities that might drive...

That sounds like a reasonable solution. However, they cannot implement any rule changes during the current season according to the NCAA bylaws. Those changes have to go through a process that occurres after the season. 

That sounds like a reasonable solution. However, they cannot implement any rule changes during the current season according to the NCAA bylaws. Those changes have to go through a process that occurres after the season.

Ok, I just read an article on Eleven Warriors stating that the NCAA can make adjustments during the seaons as to how a penalty if enforced. They are considering making a ruling on this specific rule shortly, according to the aritcle. 


Link.

I don't get why everybody considers this a brilliant no-brainer move by Lanning.

Even though 4 seconds ran off the clock, there was a risk to automaticly giving Ohio St 5 extra yards on the play.  If on the next play, Will Howard runs and takes a knee with 1 second left, calls time out and then Ohio St kicks the game winning FG,  does it still look like a brilliant move by Lanning?

The way I look at it,  Lanning took a calculated risk and it paid off,  but he had no guaruntee it would pay off.  In fact it could have easily back-fired on him.

In a way, I agree.  This is what I was getting at with my question about why you would send ONLY one extra guy out there. 

It obviously worked out but 12 vs 11 doesn't automatically guarantee that the Buckeyes can't complete a pass.  Additionally, by running an extra guy out there you also give the Buckeyes an insurance policy against an INT because if anything bad (for the Buckeyes) happens on the play, the Buckeyes can simply take the five yard penalty thus negating the bad thing (int, for example).  

In retrospect, the Buckeyes' response should have been either:

• Spike the ball, or
• Throw a reckless pass deep.   

Spiking the ball:
When the play started it was 3rd and 25 at the Oregon 43 with 00:10 to go.  From there it is a 58 yard FG.  Spiking the ball shouldn't take more than 00:01 so you'd be at 3rd and 20 at the Oregon 38 with 00:09 to go.  Oregon can't win that way.  If you keep repeating that you get:

• 00:09 at the 38, 53 yard FG.  
• 00:08 at the 33, 48 yard FG.  
• 00:07 at the 28, 43 yard FG.  
• 00:06 at the 23, 38 yard FG.  

That math doesn't work for Oregon there because Ohio State gets close enough to just line up and kick the FG before they run out of time.  

Throwing a reckless pass deep:
There are basically four possibilities here:

• Incomplete:  Ok, take the penalty, line up and try again from five yards closer.  
• Interception.  Ok, take the penalty, line up and try again from five yards closer.  
• Pass Interference:  Now you get a bigger penalty and into FG range.  
• Completion:  You either score or get into FG range.  

The first two are not bad for the Buckeyes and the second two almost certainly result in a tOSU win.