[ColoradoTree]

Also, the Ok St. Cowboys just lost (undeservedly) to the Central Michigan Chippewas.  Cent. Michigan was wrongly awarded an untimed down at the end of the game after OSU attempted to run out the clock on fourth down with a passing play where no receivers ran routes(illegal grounding)...and CMU proceeded to throw the ball 42 yards, lateral, and score.

Good job, Mike Gundy.

Barry J had one rush for 4 yds and two receptions for 2 yds total.  Free Barry J!  :(

It's worth noting that Oklahoma State was only ahead at that point because the officials picked up a holding flag that would have negated the go-ahead touchdown (which Okla State scored on 4th and 1 from the 2-yard line).  Replays confirmed that it was clearly holding, so that's why I'm unsympathetic to Cowboy partisans that want the result overturned because the very last play shouldn't have happened--the Pokes shouldn't have been ahead in the first place (assuming they wouldn't have then scored on 4th at 11 from the 12). 

[ColoradoTree]

Also, the Ok St. Cowboys just lost (undeservedly) to the Central Michigan Chippewas.  Cent. Michigan was wrongly awarded an untimed down at the end of the game after OSU attempted to run out the clock on fourth down with a passing play where no receivers ran routes(illegal grounding)...and CMU proceeded to throw the ball 42 yards, lateral, and score.

Good job, Mike Gundy.

Barry J had one rush for 4 yds and two receptions for 2 yds total.  Free Barry J!  :(

It's worth noting that Oklahoma State was only ahead at that point because the officials picked up a holding flag that would have negated the go-ahead touchdown (which Okla State scored on 4th and 1 from the 2-yard line).  Replays confirmed that it was clearly holding, so that's why I'm unsympathetic to Cowboy partisans that want the result overturned because the very last play shouldn't have happened--the Pokes shouldn't have been ahead in the first place (assuming they wouldn't have then scored on 4th at 11 from the 12). 

[ColoradoTree]

Though the game officials made a call on the untimed down when the rulebook has no such stipulation, if you look at it logically, the rulebook is flawed in the spirit of that particular play.  Breaking it down...

1. It was 4th and 13 with 4 secs on the clock
2. OSU had all 11 players in tight when it snapped the ball
3. CMU was coming after the OSU QB, who was in shotgun
4. He threw the ball away, out of bounds, between the tackles, with no receivers even going down field
5. Had the QB been sacked, with time on the clock, CMU would have taken over where he was sacked
6. There was time on the clock when the OSU QB threw the ball
7. Had he not thrown it away to avoid the sack, CMU would have had the ball with 1 second left on the clock
8. OSU "cheated" CMU out of the sack, by committing an intentional grounding penalty

OSU had any number of options with 4 secs left:

1. Punt the ball
2. Receivers go down field and lob up a pass OOB as time expired
3. QB could have taken the ball and ran backwards until the clock expired

So although the rulebook says there isn't an untimed down when the offense commits a penalty in that situation, given the circumstances of the play, the rulebook should stipulate that situation is handled exactly as it was, IMO.  It absolutely seemed like the right call logically at the time, which is probably why Mike Gundy didn't raise hell and take out his copy of the rulebook to show the refs. 

I have no problem with the officials "blowing the call" because the outcome was absolutely justified to me.  The idea that a team can clinch a win by committing such a flagrant penalty like intentional grounding in that situation, does not sit well with me.

Exactly right.  The officials' explanation seemed right to me at the time.  You shouldn't be able to end the game by committing a penalty.  I get not punting because you don't want to risk any sort of return (though punting from the CMU 41 should have meant that you could have gotten a touchback or kicked it out of bounds with 4 seconds still coming off the clock).  I'm frankly surprised that they didn't go with your option #3.  Take the snap, turn around and run for 5 seconds, and slide to the ground.  Or combine options #2 and #3, with the QB running back 15 yards diagonally, and then throwing a bomb across the width of the field about 10 feet over the head of a receiver.  Or, heck, it's a 3-point lead, just sprint through the back of the end zone, concede the safety, and go home with a win.  There were 59 yards between the LOS and the end zone, after all.  Pretty sure running that distance would chew up 4 seconds. 

Weird play call, especially since OK State was close to doing your option #2, but just didn't send a receiver down the sideline to make it look close enough. 

But yes, the officials had an obligation to get that call--and every other call--right by the letter of the rule.  I'm just not going to get too bent out of shape about it when (1) Oklahoma State shouldn't have scored the go-ahead touchdown to begin with because of a holding flag that was inexplicably picked up, and (2) there is something unjust about getting to end the game by committing a penalty, and those perverse incentives shouldn't be a part of the game.  I wonder how many coaches learned about that rule for the first time over the weekend--"wait, I can end the game on a grounding call?" 

[ColoradoTree]

Though the game officials made a call on the untimed down when the rulebook has no such stipulation, if you look at it logically, the rulebook is flawed in the spirit of that particular play.  Breaking it down...

1. It was 4th and 13 with 4 secs on the clock
2. OSU had all 11 players in tight when it snapped the ball
3. CMU was coming after the OSU QB, who was in shotgun
4. He threw the ball away, out of bounds, between the tackles, with no receivers even going down field
5. Had the QB been sacked, with time on the clock, CMU would have taken over where he was sacked
6. There was time on the clock when the OSU QB threw the ball
7. Had he not thrown it away to avoid the sack, CMU would have had the ball with 1 second left on the clock
8. OSU "cheated" CMU out of the sack, by committing an intentional grounding penalty

OSU had any number of options with 4 secs left:

1. Punt the ball
2. Receivers go down field and lob up a pass OOB as time expired
3. QB could have taken the ball and ran backwards until the clock expired

So although the rulebook says there isn't an untimed down when the offense commits a penalty in that situation, given the circumstances of the play, the rulebook should stipulate that situation is handled exactly as it was, IMO.  It absolutely seemed like the right call logically at the time, which is probably why Mike Gundy didn't raise hell and take out his copy of the rulebook to show the refs. 

I have no problem with the officials "blowing the call" because the outcome was absolutely justified to me.  The idea that a team can clinch a win by committing such a flagrant penalty like intentional grounding in that situation, does not sit well with me.

Exactly right.  The officials' explanation seemed right to me at the time.  You shouldn't be able to end the game by committing a penalty.  I get not punting because you don't want to risk any sort of return (though punting from the CMU 41 should have meant that you could have gotten a touchback or kicked it out of bounds with 4 seconds still coming off the clock).  I'm frankly surprised that they didn't go with your option #3.  Take the snap, turn around and run for 5 seconds, and slide to the ground.  Or combine options #2 and #3, with the QB running back 15 yards diagonally, and then throwing a bomb across the width of the field about 10 feet over the head of a receiver.  Or, heck, it's a 3-point lead, just sprint through the back of the end zone, concede the safety, and go home with a win.  There were 59 yards between the LOS and the end zone, after all.  Pretty sure running that distance would chew up 4 seconds. 

Weird play call, especially since OK State was close to doing your option #2, but just didn't send a receiver down the sideline to make it look close enough. 

But yes, the officials had an obligation to get that call--and every other call--right by the letter of the rule.  I'm just not going to get too bent out of shape about it when (1) Oklahoma State shouldn't have scored the go-ahead touchdown to begin with because of a holding flag that was inexplicably picked up, and (2) there is something unjust about getting to end the game by committing a penalty, and those perverse incentives shouldn't be a part of the game.  I wonder how many coaches learned about that rule for the first time over the weekend--"wait, I can end the game on a grounding call?" 

[StanfordMatt]

I understand and share the strong anti-OSU sentiment on this board in the wake of the Fiesta Bowl. That being said, all of the convoluted logic I see in this thread attempting to somehow justify the result is hogwash. The Pokes were robbed in one of the worst cases of refereeing I have seen in a long, long time. The "5th down game" of 1990 comes to mind as a gaffe of similar egregiousness. The officiating crew should be suspended for the rest of the season at a minimum.

This wasn't a call that needed to be made in the heat of battle like a holding call. It also didn't involve any judgement. Apples and oranges. The refs huddled after the intentional grounding and all of them messed up even with the benefit of time to deliberate a simple application of the rule. If the rule wasn't in place, Gundy wouldn't have called the play. I also don't buy the argument that OSU is responsible for putting themselves in the situation where the refs could decide the outcome of the game. Refs have the ability to influence the outcome of every game in every sport. It's the whole reason they're there. When the refs make a mistake of Mount Vesuvius proportions there's no looking elsewhere to place blame.

[StanfordMatt]

I understand and share the strong anti-OSU sentiment on this board in the wake of the Fiesta Bowl. That being said, all of the convoluted logic I see in this thread attempting to somehow justify the result is hogwash. The Pokes were robbed in one of the worst cases of refereeing I have seen in a long, long time. The "5th down game" of 1990 comes to mind as a gaffe of similar egregiousness. The officiating crew should be suspended for the rest of the season at a minimum.

This wasn't a call that needed to be made in the heat of battle like a holding call. It also didn't involve any judgement. Apples and oranges. The refs huddled after the intentional grounding and all of them messed up even with the benefit of time to deliberate a simple application of the rule. If the rule wasn't in place, Gundy wouldn't have called the play. I also don't buy the argument that OSU is responsible for putting themselves in the situation where the refs could decide the outcome of the game. Refs have the ability to influence the outcome of every game in every sport. It's the whole reason they're there. When the refs make a mistake of Mount Vesuvius proportions there's no looking elsewhere to place blame.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Maybe Barry J just isn't very good? I think at this point that's a fair conclusion to draw.

Fair conclusion given he carried the ball only once, but OSU is only a shade different from the WSU offense. Pass first offenses that do not run at least 30-40% of the time usually develop offensive lines that do not have much push or effective blocking on a rushing play.

During the Pokes loss this past weekend, they had 16 rushing plays for 69 yards (on top of 9 sacks so final stats read 25 rush attempts for 50 yds). That is 53 pass plays vs 16 designed rushing plays. I would conclude the Pokes rushing game is not very good regardless of who is carrying the rock.

[PrinceLightfoot]

Maybe Barry J just isn't very good? I think at this point that's a fair conclusion to draw.

Fair conclusion given he carried the ball only once, but OSU is only a shade different from the WSU offense. Pass first offenses that do not run at least 30-40% of the time usually develop offensive lines that do not have much push or effective blocking on a rushing play.

During the Pokes loss this past weekend, they had 16 rushing plays for 69 yards (on top of 9 sacks so final stats read 25 rush attempts for 50 yds). That is 53 pass plays vs 16 designed rushing plays. I would conclude the Pokes rushing game is not very good regardless of who is carrying the rock.

[OutsiderFan]

If the rule wasn't in place, Gundy wouldn't have called the play.

Do we know this for sure?  I didn't read or hear any post-game discussion about the call.  Who knows, maybe a WR was suppose to run a route on that play and he didn't.  I'm just not convinced Gundy knew the rule, because he didn't seem to argue it too much when it was called.  If I were the coach and I knew the rule, I would have stayed on the field until I saw them read their rulebook.

Speaking of rulebook, do officials have a copy of the rulebook at the game sites they work at?  It sure seems making them recall rules from memory exclusively, is a recipe for disaster - or what happened in this particular game.

[OutsiderFan]

If the rule wasn't in place, Gundy wouldn't have called the play.

Do we know this for sure?  I didn't read or hear any post-game discussion about the call.  Who knows, maybe a WR was suppose to run a route on that play and he didn't.  I'm just not convinced Gundy knew the rule, because he didn't seem to argue it too much when it was called.  If I were the coach and I knew the rule, I would have stayed on the field until I saw them read their rulebook.

Speaking of rulebook, do officials have a copy of the rulebook at the game sites they work at?  It sure seems making them recall rules from memory exclusively, is a recipe for disaster - or what happened in this particular game.

[StanfordMatt]

Yes, he knew the rule. The play has been a part of his playbook for 12 years apparently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mike-gundy-...d=42033705

[StanfordMatt]

Yes, he knew the rule. The play has been a part of his playbook for 12 years apparently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mike-gundy-...d=42033705

[Roberton3]

Yes, he knew the rule. The play has been a part of his playbook for 12 years apparently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mike-gundy-...d=42033705

Um, there's nothing in that article that says he knew the rule.  And if you read other articles, it's clear that he didn't consider the possibility that officials might call intentional grounding.  For example, the article at http://www.ocolly.com/sports/article_6ab...18f61.html says

Gundy and Rudolph stood near the sideline before third down on the drive and talked for about 20 seconds. Gundy said he told Rudolph to take a three-step drop and “just chunk it.”
“He kind of moved a little bit, but I never really thought of intentional grounding being called at that time in the game,” Gundy said. “I told the team that part is on me because I’m the one that made that call. As much time as we put into end-of-game situations, that never really crossed my mind.”

[Roberton3]

Yes, he knew the rule. The play has been a part of his playbook for 12 years apparently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mike-gundy-...d=42033705

Um, there's nothing in that article that says he knew the rule.  And if you read other articles, it's clear that he didn't consider the possibility that officials might call intentional grounding.  For example, the article at http://www.ocolly.com/sports/article_6ab...18f61.html says

Gundy and Rudolph stood near the sideline before third down on the drive and talked for about 20 seconds. Gundy said he told Rudolph to take a three-step drop and “just chunk it.”
“He kind of moved a little bit, but I never really thought of intentional grounding being called at that time in the game,” Gundy said. “I told the team that part is on me because I’m the one that made that call. As much time as we put into end-of-game situations, that never really crossed my mind.”

[ColoradoTree]

I understand and share the strong anti-OSU sentiment on this board in the wake of the Fiesta Bowl. That being said, all of the convoluted logic I see in this thread attempting to somehow justify the result is hogwash. The Pokes were robbed in one of the worst cases of refereeing I have seen in a long, long time. The "5th down game" of 1990 comes to mind as a gaffe of similar egregiousness. The officiating crew should be suspended for the rest of the season at a minimum.

This wasn't a call that needed to be made in the heat of battle like a holding call. It also didn't involve any judgement. Apples and oranges. The refs huddled after the intentional grounding and all of them messed up even with the benefit of time to deliberate a simple application of the rule. If the rule wasn't in place, Gundy wouldn't have called the play. I also don't buy the argument that OSU is responsible for putting themselves in the situation where the refs could decide the outcome of the game. Refs have the ability to influence the outcome of every game in every sport. It's the whole reason they're there. When the refs make a mistake of Mount Vesuvius proportions there's no looking elsewhere to place blame.

I think everyone pretty much agrees that the refs got the call wrong and that the play that allowed CMU to win should never have happened.  To me, the question is how outraged I get about it, and the answer is "not very."  And the officials--including the Big 12 replay officials that could have stepped in to correct that call but didn't do so--have all been suspended for much of the rest of the season, and I agree that they should have been suspended.  That most (I'd argue darn near all) of us didn't realize that the call was incorrect in the moment doesn't excuse the officials, who should have a ridiculous mastery of the ins and outs of the rulebook. 

As for the holding flag they picked up, I think there is a real difference between not seeing a hold in the heat of the moment, and one official seeing a hold but the referee overruling him after a debate, where the referee didn't have as good of a vantage point on the play.  That was a big mistake, and if called correctly, Oklahoma State wouldn't have scored the go-ahead touchdown.  That's my fundamental point here.  Calls get missed throughout a game.  But if they'd called the holding flag correctly (which also involved a huddle of officials), Oklahoma State isn't even in a position to get hosed, because they weren't winning. 

And I think I speak for most college football fans when I say that I had no idea that you could win the game on a play in which you commit an intentional grounding penalty.  Yes, it was a massive mistake and the officials are rightfully being punished, but it was also a somewhat obscure rule that sounds kinda dumb when it's explained.  That's what separates it from the 5th down game, where Colorado just got an extra down because the chain gang just forgot to flip the markers from 1st to 2nd after the Buffs picked up a first down and then spiked the ball.  That was a screw-up that people noticed at the time (and the officiating crew realized once the TD was scored--they huddled forever). 

Luckily for everyone, just because it's a loss doesn't mean that Oklahoma State is barred from playoff consideration, since a committee of real, live human beings can take a look at this game (if, say, Oklahoma State is a 2-loss Big 12 champ with just one loss in conference play and is up against another 2-loss champ) and give it whatever weight they desire.  Of course, they may not want to look to closely at the details or the Pokes might not get the benefit of the doubt, because CMU was the better team, gaining 80 more yards than OK State, including 361 through the air on 30-42 passing.  If Oklahoma State ends up 5-7 and misses out on a bowl because of this, then that's a shame and I hope the NCAA would grant them a waiver to participate anyway.

[ColoradoTree]

I understand and share the strong anti-OSU sentiment on this board in the wake of the Fiesta Bowl. That being said, all of the convoluted logic I see in this thread attempting to somehow justify the result is hogwash. The Pokes were robbed in one of the worst cases of refereeing I have seen in a long, long time. The "5th down game" of 1990 comes to mind as a gaffe of similar egregiousness. The officiating crew should be suspended for the rest of the season at a minimum.

This wasn't a call that needed to be made in the heat of battle like a holding call. It also didn't involve any judgement. Apples and oranges. The refs huddled after the intentional grounding and all of them messed up even with the benefit of time to deliberate a simple application of the rule. If the rule wasn't in place, Gundy wouldn't have called the play. I also don't buy the argument that OSU is responsible for putting themselves in the situation where the refs could decide the outcome of the game. Refs have the ability to influence the outcome of every game in every sport. It's the whole reason they're there. When the refs make a mistake of Mount Vesuvius proportions there's no looking elsewhere to place blame.

I think everyone pretty much agrees that the refs got the call wrong and that the play that allowed CMU to win should never have happened.  To me, the question is how outraged I get about it, and the answer is "not very."  And the officials--including the Big 12 replay officials that could have stepped in to correct that call but didn't do so--have all been suspended for much of the rest of the season, and I agree that they should have been suspended.  That most (I'd argue darn near all) of us didn't realize that the call was incorrect in the moment doesn't excuse the officials, who should have a ridiculous mastery of the ins and outs of the rulebook. 

As for the holding flag they picked up, I think there is a real difference between not seeing a hold in the heat of the moment, and one official seeing a hold but the referee overruling him after a debate, where the referee didn't have as good of a vantage point on the play.  That was a big mistake, and if called correctly, Oklahoma State wouldn't have scored the go-ahead touchdown.  That's my fundamental point here.  Calls get missed throughout a game.  But if they'd called the holding flag correctly (which also involved a huddle of officials), Oklahoma State isn't even in a position to get hosed, because they weren't winning. 

And I think I speak for most college football fans when I say that I had no idea that you could win the game on a play in which you commit an intentional grounding penalty.  Yes, it was a massive mistake and the officials are rightfully being punished, but it was also a somewhat obscure rule that sounds kinda dumb when it's explained.  That's what separates it from the 5th down game, where Colorado just got an extra down because the chain gang just forgot to flip the markers from 1st to 2nd after the Buffs picked up a first down and then spiked the ball.  That was a screw-up that people noticed at the time (and the officiating crew realized once the TD was scored--they huddled forever). 

Luckily for everyone, just because it's a loss doesn't mean that Oklahoma State is barred from playoff consideration, since a committee of real, live human beings can take a look at this game (if, say, Oklahoma State is a 2-loss Big 12 champ with just one loss in conference play and is up against another 2-loss champ) and give it whatever weight they desire.  Of course, they may not want to look to closely at the details or the Pokes might not get the benefit of the doubt, because CMU was the better team, gaining 80 more yards than OK State, including 361 through the air on 30-42 passing.  If Oklahoma State ends up 5-7 and misses out on a bowl because of this, then that's a shame and I hope the NCAA would grant them a waiver to participate anyway.

[CrazedZooChimp]

Yes, he knew the rule. The play has been a part of his playbook for 12 years apparently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mike-gundy-...d=42033705

Uhh, he didn't argue the call on the field, and in the postgame press conference basically said he had heard there may have been some mistake, but he wasn't sure what should have happened. No, he didn't design the play intending to take a intentional grounding penalty.

The argument isn't that it was called correctly, it's that the rule is written poorly and the letter of the law is illogical. As I said earlier, this is clearly a corner case the rule writers didn't think about and they should have included an exception, which I imagine will be included as soon as it can be changed.

Also, I'm pretty sure almost none of us give two shits about OSU and our viewpoints aren't from some bias. This isn't Notre Dame or U$C we're talking about...

Now let's all be like Gundy and move on, yeah? (oh, also, the statement makes it clear he didn't anticipate an intentional grounding)

[Tweet]775022604260433920[/Tweet]

[CrazedZooChimp]

Yes, he knew the rule. The play has been a part of his playbook for 12 years apparently.

http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/mike-gundy-...d=42033705

Uhh, he didn't argue the call on the field, and in the postgame press conference basically said he had heard there may have been some mistake, but he wasn't sure what should have happened. No, he didn't design the play intending to take a intentional grounding penalty.

The argument isn't that it was called correctly, it's that the rule is written poorly and the letter of the law is illogical. As I said earlier, this is clearly a corner case the rule writers didn't think about and they should have included an exception, which I imagine will be included as soon as it can be changed.

Also, I'm pretty sure almost none of us give two shits about OSU and our viewpoints aren't from some bias. This isn't Notre Dame or U$C we're talking about...

Now let's all be like Gundy and move on, yeah? (oh, also, the statement makes it clear he didn't anticipate an intentional grounding)

[Tweet]775022604260433920[/Tweet]

[StanfordMatt]

The part that never crossed his mind was that the refs would royally screw the pooch, not that intentional grounding wouldn't be called! He's not an idiot. Obviously if no receivers go out for a route and the QB chucks the ball out of bounds it's going to be intentional grounding. He absolutely designed the play this way and he's not the only coach with this play in his playbook. The fact that he took the high road and didn't throw the refs under the bus doesn't mean he didn't know what he was doing.

[StanfordMatt]

The part that never crossed his mind was that the refs would royally screw the pooch, not that intentional grounding wouldn't be called! He's not an idiot. Obviously if no receivers go out for a route and the QB chucks the ball out of bounds it's going to be intentional grounding. He absolutely designed the play this way and he's not the only coach with this play in his playbook. The fact that he took the high road and didn't throw the refs under the bus doesn't mean he didn't know what he was doing.

[OutsiderFan]

Have always liked Mike Gundy.  That is the prototypical way to respond to a difficult situation where two parties kind of screw up, but one takes most of the harm.  It's an example of life not being fair, an educator taking a frustrating situation and turning it into a great teaching moment.  Terrific lesson for his players to learn.  If I was the parent of one of them I'd be super proud that my son played for that man.

[OutsiderFan]

Have always liked Mike Gundy.  That is the prototypical way to respond to a difficult situation where two parties kind of screw up, but one takes most of the harm.  It's an example of life not being fair, an educator taking a frustrating situation and turning it into a great teaching moment.  Terrific lesson for his players to learn.  If I was the parent of one of them I'd be super proud that my son played for that man.

[fullmetal]

I'm not absolving the officials at all.  They do need to get calls correct.  I'm just saying when you put yourself in a position to let officials decide the outcome, sometimes you are going to lose.

This I can agree with.  But from the standpoint of an official, they do not see themselves as deciding outcomes.  They interpret the situation according to the rulebook such that their calls are the most supported and defensible by the rules (in a very lawyerly manner).  They seem to have gotten it wrong in this case :(

[fullmetal]

I'm not absolving the officials at all.  They do need to get calls correct.  I'm just saying when you put yourself in a position to let officials decide the outcome, sometimes you are going to lose.

This I can agree with.  But from the standpoint of an official, they do not see themselves as deciding outcomes.  They interpret the situation according to the rulebook such that their calls are the most supported and defensible by the rules (in a very lawyerly manner).  They seem to have gotten it wrong in this case :(

[Mick]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=15626.msg170784#msg170784 date=1473682206]I'm not absolving the officials at all.  They do need to get calls correct.  I'm just saying when you put yourself in a position to let officials decide the outcome, sometimes you are going to lose.

This I can agree with.  But from the standpoint of an official, they do not see themselves as deciding outcomes.  They interpret the situation according to the rulebook such that their calls are the most supported and defensible by the rules (in a very lawyerly manner).  They seem to have gotten it wrong in this case :(
[/quote]

Are you talking about the call which awarded CMU the ball and the chance to win on a miracle play, or the blatant hold that wasn't called on OSU that allowed them to score, thereby giving OSU the lead?  Or were you talking about both?

[Mick]

[quote author=winflop link=topic=15626.msg170784#msg170784 date=1473682206]I'm not absolving the officials at all.  They do need to get calls correct.  I'm just saying when you put yourself in a position to let officials decide the outcome, sometimes you are going to lose.

This I can agree with.  But from the standpoint of an official, they do not see themselves as deciding outcomes.  They interpret the situation according to the rulebook such that their calls are the most supported and defensible by the rules (in a very lawyerly manner).  They seem to have gotten it wrong in this case :(
[/quote]

Are you talking about the call which awarded CMU the ball and the chance to win on a miracle play, or the blatant hold that wasn't called on OSU that allowed them to score, thereby giving OSU the lead?  Or were you talking about both?

[fullmetal]

Untimed down.  There's a material difference between "didn't see it" / "judgment call" and "didn't interpret the rules correctly and made the wrong call."

I don't disagree that there could have been a blatant holding violation that should have been called (I didn't watch the game), but I would only let another referee critique that non-call.  In matters of "did they follow the rulebook defensibly," I think the game-time interpretation has been roundly criticized as wrong.

[fullmetal]

Untimed down.  There's a material difference between "didn't see it" / "judgment call" and "didn't interpret the rules correctly and made the wrong call."

I don't disagree that there could have been a blatant holding violation that should have been called (I didn't watch the game), but I would only let another referee critique that non-call.  In matters of "did they follow the rulebook defensibly," I think the game-time interpretation has been roundly criticized as wrong.

[donkey687]

I just want to point out that while by the letter of the rule there should not have been an extra down, the rule is flawed and illogical. It's clearly designed to not give the offensive team an extra play after a loss of down penalty, but should (and does not) have an exception for situations where the loss of down causes a change in possession. I'm guessing the rule gets rewritten as soon as it can (next offseason?) to add that exception.
[/quote]

I agree. The rule is so illogical that Gundy and the referees didn't understand that someone could get away with running out the clock by breaking a rule.  Who would have thought that the rule book was written so poorly to leave in this loophole? I bet 9 out of 10 officiating crews would have given them an extra play given the change in possession resulting from the loss of down.  Just think of the possibilities of what someone can do to run out the clock?  Have all of your players grab the opposing players face mask and hold them into the ground while the QB runs around and intentionally grounds it.

[donkey687]

I just want to point out that while by the letter of the rule there should not have been an extra down, the rule is flawed and illogical. It's clearly designed to not give the offensive team an extra play after a loss of down penalty, but should (and does not) have an exception for situations where the loss of down causes a change in possession. I'm guessing the rule gets rewritten as soon as it can (next offseason?) to add that exception.
[/quote]

I agree. The rule is so illogical that Gundy and the referees didn't understand that someone could get away with running out the clock by breaking a rule.  Who would have thought that the rule book was written so poorly to leave in this loophole? I bet 9 out of 10 officiating crews would have given them an extra play given the change in possession resulting from the loss of down.  Just think of the possibilities of what someone can do to run out the clock?  Have all of your players grab the opposing players face mask and hold them into the ground while the QB runs around and intentionally grounds it.

[dabigv13]

I would definitely enjoy seeing the video of that proposed play.

[dabigv13]

I would definitely enjoy seeing the video of that proposed play.

[martyup]

IMO the loss won't matter in the long run.  The fact that they let CMU beat them, even on an incorrect rules interpretation, tells me that they will not win their conference and will not be in a position to be considered for the CFP by the committee.

[martyup]

IMO the loss won't matter in the long run.  The fact that they let CMU beat them, even on an incorrect rules interpretation, tells me that they will not win their conference and will not be in a position to be considered for the CFP by the committee.

[StanfordMatt]

Last point I'll make on this issue. I think Gundy knew how the rule was supposed to be applied...

https://twitter.com/Pokes_State/status/7...4370221057

[StanfordMatt]

Last point I'll make on this issue. I think Gundy knew how the rule was supposed to be applied...

https://twitter.com/Pokes_State/status/7...4370221057

[OutsiderFan]

Yes, well, you'll notice there is a FSU receiver down field, so that wasn't intentional grounding.

[OutsiderFan]

Yes, well, you'll notice there is a FSU receiver down field, so that wasn't intentional grounding.

[dabigv13]

So the problem with that play you just posted is that no flag was thrown on the play for grounding.

I don't thibk Gundry fully understold the rules implications, or he would've put up more of a fight on the sideline. It's a bad and illogical rule that needs to be changed, or it will be exploited in the future.

[dabigv13]

So the problem with that play you just posted is that no flag was thrown on the play for grounding.

I don't thibk Gundry fully understold the rules implications, or he would've put up more of a fight on the sideline. It's a bad and illogical rule that needs to be changed, or it will be exploited in the future.