[StanfordMatt]

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

It definitely was intentional grounding. The FSU receiver wasn't within 30 yards of the pass.

[StanfordMatt]

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

It definitely was intentional grounding. The FSU receiver wasn't within 30 yards of the pass.

[dabigv13]

So your argument then is with the refs not throwing a flag for grounding.

[dabigv13]

So your argument then is with the refs not throwing a flag for grounding.

[StanfordMatt]

I have no argument with the refs from the FSU game. There was no need to throw the flag because even though it was intentional grounding, it was a moot point because the game was over and everyone knew it.

[StanfordMatt]

I have no argument with the refs from the FSU game. There was no need to throw the flag because even though it was intentional grounding, it was a moot point because the game was over and everyone knew it.

[BostonCard]

So was the Michigan game against Michigan State last year, wasn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBlgN85wB6U

I think "the game is over and everyone knows it" is a bad argument.  Oklahoma State does have a good argument, which is that the rule, as written, would have ended the game after the intentional grounding, and even "bad rules" should be enforced as written.

There was clearly intentional grounding by the Oklahoma State on that play.  There may have been intentional grounding on the part of FSU, although as others noted, there was at least a receiver running a pattern in the general direction of the ball.  But that is neither here nor there.  "They didn't call it another game" is not a reason not to call a penalty in your game.

As I said, the only argument OSU has is that the rulebook doesn't call for an untimed play on a change of possession, so the refs screwed up.  Whether it is a good rule or a bad rule doesn't really apply.

But as others have noted, why is OSU letting a directional school be within a score as the game is ending.  Had OSU had a 20+ point lead, the discussion would have been moot.

BC

[BostonCard]

So was the Michigan game against Michigan State last year, wasn't it?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RBlgN85wB6U

I think "the game is over and everyone knows it" is a bad argument.  Oklahoma State does have a good argument, which is that the rule, as written, would have ended the game after the intentional grounding, and even "bad rules" should be enforced as written.

There was clearly intentional grounding by the Oklahoma State on that play.  There may have been intentional grounding on the part of FSU, although as others noted, there was at least a receiver running a pattern in the general direction of the ball.  But that is neither here nor there.  "They didn't call it another game" is not a reason not to call a penalty in your game.

As I said, the only argument OSU has is that the rulebook doesn't call for an untimed play on a change of possession, so the refs screwed up.  Whether it is a good rule or a bad rule doesn't really apply.

But as others have noted, why is OSU letting a directional school be within a score as the game is ending.  Had OSU had a 20+ point lead, the discussion would have been moot.

BC

[jacketree]

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.

I think the play he just posted is supposed to show that OSU got screwed on both ends of the same play. Whether the intentional grounding was out of bounds or 30 yards over a receiver's head is irrelevant. I always thought a game couldn't end on a defensive penalty, but the same wasn't true for a penalty on the offense; even if it would benefit the other team.  Maybe that should change.  This is kinda obscure but interesting to see the recent FSU-OSU parallel.

This is still an easy way to kill the end of a game and stay within the rules.  Just get outside the tackle box, wait until the clock is at 0:01 or 0:00 and fling it out of bounds past the line of scrimmage.

I do like how the 40 year old man (!) handled this.  Yeah, it was all screwed up all sorts of ways internally and externally, but credit the Chippewas with a fantastic play.  Paul Wiggen could have used the time-space continuum bending lesson on how to publicly take a gut punch.

[jacketree]

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.

I think the play he just posted is supposed to show that OSU got screwed on both ends of the same play. Whether the intentional grounding was out of bounds or 30 yards over a receiver's head is irrelevant. I always thought a game couldn't end on a defensive penalty, but the same wasn't true for a penalty on the offense; even if it would benefit the other team.  Maybe that should change.  This is kinda obscure but interesting to see the recent FSU-OSU parallel.

This is still an easy way to kill the end of a game and stay within the rules.  Just get outside the tackle box, wait until the clock is at 0:01 or 0:00 and fling it out of bounds past the line of scrimmage.

I do like how the 40 year old man (!) handled this.  Yeah, it was all screwed up all sorts of ways internally and externally, but credit the Chippewas with a fantastic play.  Paul Wiggen could have used the time-space continuum bending lesson on how to publicly take a gut punch.

[hardball01]

This thread is really interesting to me. It makes me wonder if one additional rule would solve this issue and any variations that might come up:

The team that is on defense can choose whether to accept an offensive penalty at the end of the half or the end of the game.

Can you guys think of a situation where that would be a bad rule?

[hardball01]

This thread is really interesting to me. It makes me wonder if one additional rule would solve this issue and any variations that might come up:

The team that is on defense can choose whether to accept an offensive penalty at the end of the half or the end of the game.

Can you guys think of a situation where that would be a bad rule?

[BostonCard]

This thread is really interesting to me. It makes me wonder if one additional rule would solve this issue and any variations that might come up:

The team that is on defense can choose whether to accept an offensive penalty at the end of the half or the end of the game.

Can you guys think of a situation where that would be a bad rule?

Well, that is the current rule.  In fact, at any point in the game, the defensive team can decline an offensive penalty.  in this situation it would have been a bad rule.  If they declined the penalty, the game would have been over.

The issue is the one of an "untimed down".  Instead of saying that the untimed down occurs if the defense commits a penalty as time expires, which is almost always the case, it should say that the team who would possess the football on the ensuing down would get an untimed down.  But the only situation I can think of where that would happen would be an intentional grounding, because that is the only offensive penalty that also results in loss of down (unless you count personal fouls after the play is over).

BC

[BostonCard]

This thread is really interesting to me. It makes me wonder if one additional rule would solve this issue and any variations that might come up:

The team that is on defense can choose whether to accept an offensive penalty at the end of the half or the end of the game.

Can you guys think of a situation where that would be a bad rule?

Well, that is the current rule.  In fact, at any point in the game, the defensive team can decline an offensive penalty.  in this situation it would have been a bad rule.  If they declined the penalty, the game would have been over.

The issue is the one of an "untimed down".  Instead of saying that the untimed down occurs if the defense commits a penalty as time expires, which is almost always the case, it should say that the team who would possess the football on the ensuing down would get an untimed down.  But the only situation I can think of where that would happen would be an intentional grounding, because that is the only offensive penalty that also results in loss of down (unless you count personal fouls after the play is over).

BC

[DC 86]

But the only situation I can think of where that would happen would be an intentional grounding, because that is the only offensive penalty that also results in loss of down (unless you count personal fouls after the play is over).

BC

There are two other offensive penalties that result in loss of down:

1. Illegal forward pass: pass thrown past the line of scrimmage or second forward pass on the same play.
2. Illegal touching: forward pass first touched by an offensive lineman or other ineligible receiver.

[DC 86]

But the only situation I can think of where that would happen would be an intentional grounding, because that is the only offensive penalty that also results in loss of down (unless you count personal fouls after the play is over).

BC

There are two other offensive penalties that result in loss of down:

1. Illegal forward pass: pass thrown past the line of scrimmage or second forward pass on the same play.
2. Illegal touching: forward pass first touched by an offensive lineman or other ineligible receiver.

[BostonCard]

Thanks.  I learn something every day.

BC

[BostonCard]

Thanks.  I learn something every day.

BC