12 men on the field

[nogerO]

https://www.msn.com/en-us/sports/nfl/nc ... 3f756&ei=5

[gogreen55]

Dan "The 12th Man" Lanning on the Dan Patrick Show.

[pezsez1]

It's closer to fouling up three in basketball, rather than defend against the three.

This. Unfixed exploits really bother me. And I don't care if it's in the rules, but in the NBA, when the team that's ahead commits a foul to prevent the other team from winning, that's an exploit! Just like when Lanning committed an infraction to prevent Ohio State from getting into field goal range.

That said:

1) Exploiting the rules is not cheating. When you cheat, you break the rules. When you exploit, you take advantage of the rules. There's a pretty big difference. Exploits are legal! The important question is whether to fix them once revealed.

2) I'm glad Lanning exploited the rules. It's his job to win, and he should never apologize for that as long as he's not cheating.

Also, I think it's hilarious that the discussion has been on this 12-man penalty (which cost just four seconds and should have left Ohio State with two more plays had their QB not choked) and not on the utter failure to review an INT which led to at least a 7-pt swing. There's simply no excuse to not stop play for a moment to look at a screen. Dudes were fighting for the ball, the Oregon player CLEARLY thought he'd picked it off. In these situations, the ref could simply have a button to override & stop the game clock until someone in a booth could look at a couple camera angles and see if it's worth taking a closer look at, then restart the clock (or review it) and go on. In this case it would have led to a review and probably Oregon ball; in other cases it might just be 10-15 seconds to see there were no issues and move on to the next play.

It's wild to me that the focus is on a play that cost one team four seconds rather than the play that cost the other team seven points.

[Duck07]

It's closer to fouling up three in basketball, rather than defend against the three.

This. Unfixed exploits really bother me. And I don't care if it's in the rules, but in the NBA, when the team that's ahead commits a foul to prevent the other team from winning, that's an exploit! Just like when Lanning committed an infraction to prevent Ohio State from getting into field goal range.

That said:

1) Exploiting the rules is not cheating. When you cheat, you break the rules. When you exploit, you take advantage of the rules. There's a pretty big difference. Exploits are legal! The important question is whether to fix them once revealed.

2) I'm glad Lanning exploited the rules. It's his job to win, and he should never apologize for that as long as he's not cheating.

Also, I think it's hilarious that the discussion has been on this 12-man penalty (which cost just four seconds and should have left Ohio State with two more plays had their QB not choked) and not on the utter failure to review an INT which led to at least a 7-pt swing. There's simply no excuse to not stop play for a moment to look at a screen. Dudes were fighting for the ball, the Oregon player CLEARLY thought he'd picked it off. In these situations, the ref could simply have a button to override & stop the game clock until someone in a booth could look at a couple camera angles and see if it's worth taking a closer look at, then restart the clock (or review it) and go on. In this case it would have led to a review and probably Oregon ball; in other cases it might just be 10-15 seconds to see there were no issues and move on to the next play.

It's wild to me that the focus is on a play that cost one team four seconds rather than the play that cost the other team seven points.

Basketball Leagues have actually started to enforce the Intentional Foul rule for what it is and that its never precluded the Hack-A-Shaq method from also being Intentional. It's the officials discretion and thus its truly an Apples to Oranges comparison between the 2 situations.

Further, the rule change doesn't actually stop Dan or other Coaches from still exploiting the rule, so long as there is at least 2 minutes left on the clock. We've already seen the example of Mike Vrabel doing in in Tennessee with 3:40 remaining in the 4th of a game where they score with something like 14 seconds left and Vrabel's "move" saved 40 seconds of clock from running off. They lose without that 26 seconds he "gamed."

A much better "ethical" comparison is a Kick Returner standing out of bounds and touching the Kick, inducing the flag for Kicking out of Bounds on the Kicking team. You're causing a penalty in order to gain an advantage. Hell, now that sounds like Crowd Noise causing a False Start is breaking the rules.

[GrandpaDuck]

Am I the only one who thinks the play was a mistake for Oregon?

-The 12th man did nothing to stop the play. They went to their ace receiver, our Corner broke it up one on one.
- The only effect was OSU got 5 extra yards. Because of those 5 yards all the OSU QB needs to do is go down 1 second earlier and he is still in field goal range. Without the penalty, going down with time still on the clock would have been a more difficult field goal.

How did Oregon gain any advantage? If they hadn't done it, he still has 6 seconds but from the 43 (60 yard FG) instead of the 38 (55 yard fg). From the 43 he likely runs out of time scrambling to get into -50yard range, where he was at the 38 after the penalty if he had gone down a second earlier they would have had less then a 50 yard attempt.

To me it was a mistake that the OSU QB's internal clock error bailed us out on.

[Duck07]

Am I the only one who thinks the play was a mistake for Oregon?

-The 12th man did nothing to stop the play. They went to their ace receiver, our Corner broke it up one on one.
- The only effect was OSU got 5 extra yards. Because of those 5 yards all the OSU QB needs to do is go down 1 second earlier and he is still in field goal range. Without the penalty, going down with time still on the clock would have been a more difficult field goal.

How did Oregon gain any advantage? If they hadn't done it, he still has 6 seconds but from the 43 (60 yard FG) instead of the 38 (55 yard fg). From the 43 he likely runs out of time scrambling to get into -50yard range, where he was at the 38 after the penalty if he had gone down a second earlier they would have had less then a 50 yard attempt.

To me it was a mistake that the OSU QB's internal clock error bailed us out on.

The advantage that the Defense is trying to gain by the move, much like Buddy Ryan did with his Polish Goalline Defense, is to essentially wind the clock down to 1 final play for your defense to stop rather than 2 or 3. Neuheisel gave an example of this being used against him in the past where at the end of the 1st half, the defense forced them to have to kick a FG rather than get a real chance at a play in the end zone because of wasting time via penalty.

Now in hindsight calling a timeout was wrong because Teitum absolutely destroys the LT at the snap and has Howard dead to rights for the sack and OSU would have had to use that last timeout with something now like 5-7 seconds remaining with a 4th down and 35 from the OSU 48. That's actually what nobody has talked about and frankly Crepea would have sounded a lot smarter to bring that up at rather than quibble about whether Jabarr had help over the top. And yes, Jabarr needing to still make that PBU is also another aspect of the play that's gone under-valued. It's the best PBU he'll have that won't officially count.

[spacefrog13x]

Am I the only one who thinks the play was a mistake for Oregon?

-The 12th man did nothing to stop the play. They went to their ace receiver, our Corner broke it up one on one.
- The only effect was OSU got 5 extra yards. Because of those 5 yards all the OSU QB needs to do is go down 1 second earlier and he is still in field goal range. Without the penalty, going down with time still on the clock would have been a more difficult field goal.

How did Oregon gain any advantage? If they hadn't done it, he still has 6 seconds but from the 43 (60 yard FG) instead of the 38 (55 yard fg). From the 43 he likely runs out of time scrambling to get into -50yard range, where he was at the 38 after the penalty if he had gone down a second earlier they would have had less then a 50 yard attempt.

To me it was a mistake that the OSU QB's internal clock error bailed us out on.

The advantage that the Defense is trying to gain by the move, much like Buddy Ryan did with his Polish Goalline Defense, is to essentially wind the clock down to 1 final play for your defense to stop rather than 2 or 3. Neuheisel gave an example of this being used against him in the past where at the end of the 1st half, the defense forced them to have to kick a FG rather than get a real chance at a play in the end zone because of wasting time via penalty.

Now in hindsight calling a timeout was wrong because Teitum absolutely destroys the LT at the snap and has Howard dead to rights for the sack and OSU would have had to use that last timeout with something now like 5-7 seconds remaining with a 4th down and 35 from the OSU 48. That's actually what nobody has talked about and frankly Crepea would have sounded a lot smarter to bring that up at rather than quibble about whether Jabarr had help over the top. And yes, Jabarr needing to still make that PBU is also another aspect of the play that's gone under-valued. It's the best PBU he'll have that won't officially count.

That timeout saved Ohio State from having to scrape Howard off the surface of Rich Brooks field, holy cow.

[QuackininBama]

I love how the NCAA quickly reacts to something like this, but when a blue blood or SEC team blatantly cheats or pays players illegally (I know it’s different with NIL now) the NCAA is suddenly too busy.

Does anyone else think this was a "shot across the bow"? I swear it's almost like the NCAA is like, "We ain't letting no Pac-10 team roll into the big like they own the place and start disrupting the order of things we've had in place for 50 years".

I half expect them to have put out the word to humble us. They might do something like, Ohh I dunno, if we went to Purdue and they just completely ignored us scoring a touchdown three times in a row pretending it never happened?