Decieving the D

CAFB_04-12 wrote:
It doesn't matter if the refs called the penalty in accordance with their internal memo. If the coaches didn't get the memo and didn't have a chance to revise their playbooks then it should not have been called.

I'm guessing the memo did get sent to the coaches, but it either got lost or overlooked. It is on the NCAA website. I believe Bronco when he said he didn't know about it, but there are many different explanations for that. If the NCAA really didn't send it to the coaches, I agree completely that it is a bad situation. Someone just probably goofed up somewhere. Good thing it didn't cost us anything.

UVACoug wrote:
It is not exactly the same, but close enough to justify the call. Especially when the words of the rule cited leave the call completely to the discretion of the ref (an "unfair act not specifically covered by the rules").

Excellent. Now that I know what the rule is, I'll be looking to fair-minded referees to use their discretion to penalize the BCS for GROSSLY unfair acts not specifically covered by the rules. I mean, it's about time SOMEBODY did, RIGHT???

:angry: :angry: :angry: :angry: :angry:

kitic77 wrote:
The other rule that needs to be amended is tackling the RB behind the line of scrimmage on a screen pass. Just because the ball has not crossed the LOS should not give license to tackle offensive players. BYU had a beautiful screen pass set up until AF decided to simply tackle the RB and not allow the pass to be completed. But because it was behind the LOS there could be no pass interference. A forward pass is a forward pass.

I respectfully disagree on this one. I think it is a needed rule for the defense's sake. The rule is there to allow the defense to take out blockers on reverses, options, and even screens. Without the rule, the defense can't hit any potentially eligible receiver until there has been a forward pass, because the defense has no way of knowing whether that guy is going to be a blocker or a receiver. If the quarterback saw a tight end engaged behind the LOS, he just has to toss the ball his way and get an easy PI call despite the fact that the TE wasn't even on a route or schemed as a receiver in the set.



Taking that rule out of the book would give a HUGE advantage to offenses, and would absolutely change the entire game. The coaches and players understand the rule, and no one on the field was complaining when the flag was picked up. It's part of the risk/reward of any pass that doesn't cross the line of scrimmage.

Even with the rule and the memo I think that play is still perfectly fine. Otherwise, you may get some ref who thinks a play-action pass is too unfair if the QB sells it too well. There is absolutely no justification for the call, and it was made solely to keep BYU from scoring. It was the second time that night that the officiating crew had done that.

I wonder if this play could be tweaked slightly to fulfill the rule and still be affective? Maybe Max walks across the line doing the audible thing and then steps back like he is going into shotgun but just comes set for just a second in the backfield and they still snap to Harvey... the timing would need to be practiced well as I am thinking one of Max's audible calls is probably the snap signal...

wazzucoug97 wrote:
I wonder if this play could be tweaked slightly to fulfill the rule and still be affective? Maybe Max walks across the line doing the audible thing and then steps back like he is going into shotgun but just comes set for just a second in the backfield and they still snap to Harvey... the timing would need to be practiced well as I am thinking one of Max's audible calls is probably the snap signal...

I think it would work with a few changes to come into compliance. I think the problem was that Max was clearly acting like the play was not going to go off. Even if it was just snapped while he was moving to one side of the line or the other to give the audible, I think it would work. If he is ready for the snap and it is instead snapped to Harvey, I think you lose some of the element of surprise. It works well because the defense is not ready for the snap. If we could do that without making them think there is going to be a timeout or the play won't go off, then I think it would be OK.



Unless it is done by BYU of course. Refs will call anything against BYU. Seriously, they were absolutely horrendous yesterday. I have been convinced that the "intent to deceive" call was justified (although stupid), but they were doing everything they could to keep AFA in the game.

This is how I think they should run it.



You know all those teams that get set for the snap then stand up to get a new play from the sidelines? I think the TE and QB should standup, look to the sideline to appear to get a new play, as the C snaps the ball to the RB who rumbles in for the TD.

I thought they would throw a flag on the fans for cheering to loud and giving the cougs a 15 yard penalty.

Here's Wrubell's explanation of the penalty:



http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=498&sid=8765000

I read the memo link on Cougar Tracks, and play #2 is certainly in the same genre as the play Hall ran. I would like to know who in the football office is in charge of getting this stuff from the NCAA and disseminating it to the coaches.

Just out of curiosity, could the play where Max faked like he was going to spike the ball at the end of the first half against SDSU(probably not the right game, but I cant remember which it was :blush: ) but ran in for the touchdown as time expired have been penalized under this same rule? I know that in high school football the referees are very protective of offensive players when the offense is either spiking the ball or kneeling to run the clock out, and wasn't sure if a team could get in trouble for acting like they were doing one or the other, but running a play instead, because the refs tell the defense to ease up on the play. Could his play have been considered "unfair"? :skeptic:

Oh, and in response to the thread I think that the real reason for the penalty is an unwritten rule that any attempts to fool our service men on the field should be considered an act of treason, and penalized to the maximum.........15 yards and no touchdown. GO COUGARS 8) :crazy:

Utah will run a very similar trick play next week, and not get flagged for it. Mark my words.

Here's where I see the difference: Hall was NOT moving toward our sideline, he was NOT looking to the coaches for a play to run or to call a timeout (unless the AFA coaches were going to tell him what to do), he simply was motioning for an audible. I understand it's just a detail, but that's where the exactness of football rules is found, in the details. It was a bad call and these HORRIBLE officials tried to cover their butt, yet it didn't work. :angry:

That memo is hores crap (and by "horse crap" I mean HORSE CRAP)



If the NCAA wants to have a rule prohibiting the fake time out, fake request for a new play, fake request for more information then make an actual rule. By having these "example plays" memos, you end up with the exact same play being run in two different games officiated by two different crews being called two different ways. Rules are only as good as they are uniformly enforced. By having these “fuzzy” not clearly-identifiable rules, you get stupid (and by "stupid" I mean stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid stupid) Officials who think that a QB can get instructins from the 5 yard line (whereon one can be) of the opposing team’s sideline. We’re talking about college kids here, give them a bit more credit than this.

Spudman87 wrote:
Just out of curiosity, could the play where Max faked like he was going to spike the ball at the end of the first half against SDSU(probably not the right game, but I cant remember which it was :blush: ) but ran in for the touchdown as time expired have been penalized under this same rule? I know that in high school football the referees are very protective of offensive players when the offense is either spiking the ball or kneeling to run the clock out, and wasn't sure if a team could get in trouble for acting like they were doing one or the other, but running a play instead, because the refs tell the defense to ease up on the play. Could his play have been considered "unfair"? :skeptic:

Oh, and in response to the thread I think that the real reason for the penalty is an unwritten rule that any attempts to fool our service men on the field should be considered an act of treason, and penalized to the maximum.........15 yards and no touchdown. GO COUGARS 8) :crazy:

Yes, by the way this play was interpreted, Max most definitely should have been flagged against SDSU for attempting to deceive the defense.

Another "example" in the NCAA memo says



4. Team A is trailing 38-34. Back A43 runs for a touchdown as the game clock goes to 0:00 in the fourth quarter, making the score 40-38 in favor of Team A. Team A’s coach tells the referee that his team will not attempt the try.

RULING: Because the margin is less than three points Team A must attempt the try. The result of the try could affect the outcome of the game. (8-3-2-a)



Does that mean that Bronco would now be penalized if he decides not to try the PAT,like he did in the 06 Utah game that we won 33-31--he didn't try a PAT to avoid the possibility of Utah blocking the kick and running it in for 2 points...

Florwood wrote:
Another "example" in the NCAA memo says



4. Team A is trailing 38-34. Back A43 runs for a touchdown as the game clock goes to 0:00 in the fourth quarter, making the score 40-38 in favor of Team A. Team A’s coach tells the referee that his team will not attempt the try.

RULING: Because the margin is less than three points Team A must attempt the try. The result of the try could affect the outcome of the game. (8-3-2-a)



Does that mean that Bronco would now be penalized if he decides not to try the PAT,like he did in the 06 Utah game that we won 33-31--he didn't try a PAT to avoid the possibility of Utah blocking the kick and running it in for 2 points...

No, becuase BYU did indeed attempt the PAT. It was a two point conversion attempt that saw John Beck sacked for a two-yard loss.

kitic77 wrote:

Another "example" in the NCAA memo says



4. Team A is trailing 38-34. Back A43 runs for a touchdown as the game clock goes to 0:00 in the fourth quarter, making the score 40-38 in favor of Team A. Team A’s coach tells the referee that his team will not attempt the try.

RULING: Because the margin is less than three points Team A must attempt the try. The result of the try could affect the outcome of the game. (8-3-2-a)



Does that mean that Bronco would now be penalized if he decides not to try the PAT,like he did in the 06 Utah game that we won 33-31--he didn't try a PAT to avoid the possibility of Utah blocking the kick and running it in for 2 points...

No, becuase BYU did indeed attempt the PAT. It was a two point conversion attempt that saw John Beck sacked for a two-yard loss.

That's right. The refs made us snap the ball; but rather than risking a blocked kick attempt, they just kneeled down

ABYUFAN wrote:

Florwood wrote:
Another "example" in the NCAA memo says



4. Team A is trailing 38-34. Back A43 runs for a touchdown as the game clock goes to 0:00 in the fourth quarter, making the score 40-38 in favor of Team A. Team A’s coach tells the referee that his team will not attempt the try.

RULING: Because the margin is less than three points Team A must attempt the try. The result of the try could affect the outcome of the game. (8-3-2-a)



Does that mean that Bronco would now be penalized if he decides not to try the PAT,like he did in the 06 Utah game that we won 33-31--he didn't try a PAT to avoid the possibility of Utah blocking the kick and running it in for 2 points...

No, becuase BYU did indeed attempt the PAT. It was a two point conversion attempt that saw John Beck sacked for a two-yard loss.

That's right. The refs made us snap the ball; but rather than risking a blocked kick attempt, they just kneeled down

I still wish we would have kicked the extra point. The risk would have been worth the final score of 34-31 going against Utah this time.

Wickchad84087 wrote:

kitic77 wrote:

Another "example" in the NCAA memo says



4. Team A is trailing 38-34. Back A43 runs for a touchdown as the game clock goes to 0:00 in the fourth quarter, making the score 40-38 in favor of Team A. Team A’s coach tells the referee that his team will not attempt the try.

RULING: Because the margin is less than three points Team A must attempt the try. The result of the try could affect the outcome of the game. (8-3-2-a)



Does that mean that Bronco would now be penalized if he decides not to try the PAT,like he did in the 06 Utah game that we won 33-31--he didn't try a PAT to avoid the possibility of Utah blocking the kick and running it in for 2 points...

No, becuase BYU did indeed attempt the PAT. It was a two point conversion attempt that saw John Beck sacked for a two-yard loss.

That's right. The refs made us snap the ball; but rather than risking a blocked kick attempt, they just kneeled down

I still wish we would have kicked the extra point. The risk would have been worth the final score of 34-31 going against Utah this time.

Uh no. Utah could have blocked the kick and run it back for two points sending the game into overtime. Risk of losing the game vs. benefit of reaching some superstitious score?