Started By
Message
There should not be a :10 runoff in this situation
Posted on 12/31/10 at 12:22 am
Posted on 12/31/10 at 12:22 am
Even if this were the NFL, there would not have been a runoff. Why? The penalty did not stop the clock. An incomplete pass after a legal snap stopped the clock. What was illegal was that during the play, there were too many men on the field.
In the NFL, there is a :10 runoff for a false start or illegal (early) snap. In this case, NC lined up, and their line was set for a whole second, and they snapped it. The spike stopped the clock. Then they discuss the penalty.
Even if they were to institute a :10 runoff rule in college, it would not apply to a play like this.
In the NFL, there is a :10 runoff for a false start or illegal (early) snap. In this case, NC lined up, and their line was set for a whole second, and they snapped it. The spike stopped the clock. Then they discuss the penalty.
Even if they were to institute a :10 runoff rule in college, it would not apply to a play like this.
4
Posted on 12/31/10 at 12:47 am to xiv
5 men in motion running off the field at the same time. Are you saying only the linemen need to be set?
Posted on 12/31/10 at 12:59 am to xiv
How long would it have taken for UNC to get a legal play off?
Posted on 12/31/10 at 1:13 am to Eternalmajin
quote:Pretty much. When it's obvious that the extra players aren't involved in the play, that does not make a snap illegal. It was obvious who was in that play and who wasn't.
5 men in motion running off the field at the same time. Are you saying only the linemen need to be set?
Posted on 12/31/10 at 1:16 am to xiv
Yeah pretty sure if you have more than 11 on the field it doesn't matter who "obviously is involved".
More than 2 men were moving at the time of the sat therefore they weren't set, therefore illegal snap. So yes a 10 second run off in the pros.
In college it was illegal because the defense wasn't given ample time to substitute, when UNC ran half their kickoff team on. The morons got it wrong.
More than 2 men were moving at the time of the sat therefore they weren't set, therefore illegal snap. So yes a 10 second run off in the pros.
In college it was illegal because the defense wasn't given ample time to substitute, when UNC ran half their kickoff team on. The morons got it wrong.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 1:17 am to xiv
frick off. Everyone watching that bullshite knows it was bullshite.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 1:20 am to JB Bama
quote:Not so. If you have 12 men on the field, and all 12 are lined up and involved in the play, the penalty is "illegal participation" for 15 yards. If you have 11 lined up and a 12th man running toward the sidelines trying to get off, but he doesn't get off the field before the ball is snapped, that's "12 men on the field" for five yards. So it does actually matter.
Yeah pretty sure if you have more than 11 on the field it doesn't matter who "obviously is involved".
quote:Nope. Not in this case. That is not how the rule is enforced.
More than 2 men were moving at the time of the sat therefore they weren't set, therefore illegal snap. So yes a 10 second run off in the pros.
quote:Nope. Officials are instructed not to stand over the ball in the final seconds because they don't want the game to end while they're allowing the other team to substitute.
In college it was illegal because the defense wasn't given ample time to substitute, when UNC ran half their kickoff team on. The morons got it wrong.
As I said in another thread, I know some officials, and I ask them stuff like this all the time; I talked to one of them tonight, and he confirmed that the right calls were made tonight.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 1:21 am to Volmanac
quote:I've seen a few of your posts on this subject, and it is clear that you do not have a firm grasp of the rules here. I suggest you do a little research before replying to me again.
frick off. Everyone watching that bullshite knows it was bullshite.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 2:09 am to xiv
The guy is a Tennessee fan and is probably just pissed they lost in that fashion again. I wouldn't take his emotional opinion too seriously. It was the proper call.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 7:47 am to LSUtoOmaha
I understand the rule, but why reward the team who incurred the penalty. By that logic, who's to stop a WR from throwing a punch at a DB? CLM is taking notes. 
Posted on 12/31/10 at 7:52 am to xiv
Only problem I see with what you are explaining is that there were twelve men on the field prior to and during the snap... In my opinion, FWIW, that penalty happened before the play took place, and should be flagged just as a false start/encroachment, but starting the clock again after the refs spot the ball. At least that would slow it down enough to where there wouldn't be any rule confusion, because then it leaves it up to the offense to snap and spike the ball before the clock runs out, and gives them a little time to do so.
I don't like the idea of a runoff, but that whole process should be slowed down to make it more clear what happens. The incomplete pass (spike) should not have been counted and after the march off of penalty yards the clock should have started again. Just my interpretation of things.
I don't like the idea of a runoff, but that whole process should be slowed down to make it more clear what happens. The incomplete pass (spike) should not have been counted and after the march off of penalty yards the clock should have started again. Just my interpretation of things.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 8:02 am to xiv
Like the announcers were saying last night, this is a loophole that needs to be closed. Any offensive penalty should result in some kind of run off.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 9:43 am to The Mick
quote:
Like the announcers were saying last night, this is a loophole that needs to be closed. Any offensive penalty should result in some kind of run off.
^^^^^
agrees with this....no way should an intentional offensive penalty allow for a second chance in that situation...unc screwed the pooch big time but it didn't matter...if that was proper call it should be changed
Posted on 12/31/10 at 10:22 am to arseinclarse
quote:UNC was not rewarded. They were penalized. Had they not had substitution confusion, they would have spiked the ball anyway (and a few seconds earlier), and they would have kicked a shorter field goal.
I understand the rule, but why reward the team who incurred the penalty.
quote:I seriously don't know why people don't understand this (sorry--don't take it personally).
By that logic, who's to stop a WR from throwing a punch at a DB?
If the offense snaps the ball legally (which UNC did because their entire offensive line was set and nobody near the play was in forward motion) and throws an incomplete pass, they have stopped the clock on their own. If a penalty occurs during the play, they are penalized yardage. They did not buy a time-out with a penalty. They stopped the clock with an incomplete pass.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 10:25 am to hogfaninlafayette
quote:It isn't a loophole. Their offense was set, and they snapped the ball legally, and they stopped the clock with an incomplete pass. A penalty occurred during the play, and it was a penalty that did not stop the clock. There is no loophole--I was going nuts when the announcers were saying that.
quote:
Like the announcers were saying last night, this is a loophole that needs to be closed. Any offensive penalty should result in some kind of run off.
^^^^^
agrees with this....no way should an intentional offensive penalty allow for a second chance in that situation...unc screwed the pooch big time but it didn't matter...if that was proper call it should be changed
UNC wasn't given a "2nd chance."
Posted on 12/31/10 at 10:38 am to xiv
quote:
Yeah pretty sure if you have more than 11 on the field it doesn't matter who "obviously is involved".
Not so. If you have 12 men on the field, and all 12 are lined up and involved in the play, the penalty is "illegal participation" for 15 yards. If you have 11 lined up and a 12th man running toward the sidelines trying to get off, but he doesn't get off the field before the ball is snapped, that's "12 men on the field" for five yards. So it does actually matter.
Thats part of the issue, they had 12 men "set" in addition to the others running off the field. Yet the ref assigned to counting the participants did not do so nor even more amazingly, did the replay officials. For that matter , on the Jackson penalty, when they reviewed it to see if the WR gained possession of the ball after he bobbled it, did they not pay attention th the fact that his helmet was the first thing to touch the ground and that it was out of bounds?
Posted on 12/31/10 at 10:41 am to VOLcanic
quote:You appear to be correct. I would have called that 15 yards and not 5.
Thats part of the issue, they had 12 men "set" in addition to the others running off the field. Yet the ref assigned to counting the participants did not do so nor even more amazingly, did the replay officials.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 10:44 am to Volmanac
quote:
frick off. Everyone watching that bullshite knows it was bullshite.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 10:46 am to VOLcanic
All players must be set, regardless of how close they are to the play in the NFL rule if they are on the field of play. And two players cannot be in motion at the same time. However, xiv is right on this otherwise (and I stand corrected from the prior thread). The issue is that the game clock was not running. The NFL rule is designed to prevent teams from stopping a running game clock by snapping the ball when everyone isn't set. I believe the NFL would have applied the :10 second runnoff on this play if the game clock were running.
Posted on 12/31/10 at 11:02 am to DEG
quote:I believe they were set last night, but at least somebody understands the purpose of the NFL runoff.
The NFL rule is designed to prevent teams from stopping a running game clock by snapping the ball when everyone isn't set. I believe the NFL would have applied the :10 second runnoff on this play if the game clock were running.
The idea that any offensive penalty should result in a runoff is just silly.
Page 1 of 2
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News