PAC 12 changes USC/Utah score post-game
USC blocked Utah's last second field goal attempt which would have tied the game and took it to the house. However the officials called the score back citing the new "live ball taunting rule" when USC players rushed the field during the play. However, apparently that rule is only supposed to apply to the 11 players on the field. So the PAC 12 retroactively changed the official score of the game.
Several things here.
1. This new rule is retarded and some official WILL eventually ruin an important game with a BS call.
2. That being said, how do you change the score of a game? The game is the game. If the officials blow a call, it's a blown call. It's ridiculous for a committee to meet after the game and change what happened. Where do you draw the line?
3. How dumb is it that you can run on the field and taunt the hell out of the other team and NOT get the score called back, but if a guy dives into the endzone unnecessarily then the score comes off the board?
4. I would have LOVED for Lane Kiffin to get screwed by something like this after he ran his mouth about Cody in the 2009 game.
9 months ago
Zoltar
30 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I'm actually OK with the rule
in terms of taunting during a play being a live ball/spot foul. This little points controversy reeks of Vegas though.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
The problem is how you decide what constitutes taunting and what doesn’t. If a guy runs backwards into the endzone, cartwheels, or some crap like that then I can understand wanting to not count the score. BUT there is so much gray. What about just looking back and “staring down” the defender? Is he taunting, or just making sure nobody comes to tackle him. What about diving in the endzone? Where do you draw the line between a necessary dive and an “i’m showing off” dive?
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
The definition
is anything that would have been called before. They didn’t change the definition of taunting, and I’ve personally never seen anyone flagged for just looking back. Has to be a point, high step, hand-behind-the-head pose, something. And if he does it after scoring then nothing changed at all.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
Whey the first came out with this rule, the head of ncaa officiating went on college football live, and one of the examples he showed where a score would be taken off the board was a Michigan play where the receiver simply stared back at a defender that was running about 10 yards behind him as he went into the endzone.
I’m aware that they didn’t change what taunting is, BUT it’s not like they have a stellar record of enforcing this rule in the past (Arkansas/LSU 2009 for example).
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
It certainly does reek of Vegas.
“Yo, Pac12 , Vinnie says them 6 Trojan points count or I break your kneecaps.”
"All I wanna do is drive around in my truck and drink Jack Daniels... and they just don't understand."- Kenny Stabler
Actually,
my understanding is that this little deal actually killed Vegas. Anybody that betted that USC wouldn’t cover collected, then all the original losers collected once the score changed.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
by Slice of Life on Sep 12, 2011 12:50 PM CDT up reply actions
Article I read in the paper said that the major Vegas houses refused to honor the updated score.
Not sure how that works or if the state will do anything about it.
God bless our Dark Lord.
Sounds like a big mess.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
At least some did.
Contacted about the finish by The [Los Angeles] Times, a supervisor at the MGM Mirage Sports Book said, “That cost us huge. We needed USC to cover the 8½ and when they didn’t allow that touchdown, that killed us.”
[…]
The switch, he said, made for a six-figure loss for his sports book.
“Now we lose double,” he said, “because we’d already cashed out. We can’t collect from people we already paid.”
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
by Slice of Life on Sep 12, 2011 1:18 PM CDT up reply actions
So it was Charles Barkley that called the PAC12, wanting his payout from the MGM Mirage.
"All I wanna do is drive around in my truck and drink Jack Daniels... and they just don't understand."- Kenny Stabler
Follow the money....
I wonder who was in a position to get the score changed that had a big bet on USC?
Makes about as much sense
as half a can of $2 sandwich batteries
"If wanting to win is a fault, as some of my critics seem to insist, then I plead guilty. I like to win. I know no other way. It's in my blood." -- Paul "Bear" Bryant
This rule
is stupid and retarded and dumb. A pick-six is a great play – why can’t the kid high step into the end zone? If he acts like Desean Jackson, but all means. But George Teague was perfectly justified. Call me homer.
"We run this state, we run this stadium. Now let's go out there and run their ass in the ground"
I think you are arguing against the wrong rule.
You are arguing against the definition of taunting. The rule change simply deals with the type of penalty and way it’s assessed.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
I think he meant “why can’t he do it and still get the touchdown”.
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
I guess
but if the 15-yard penalty on the kickoff wasn’t enough to deter the behavior then more serious penalties were necessary. Deterring certain behavior is what penalization is all about.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
What about the punishment fitting the crime? And letting 100 guilty men go free rather than punishing 1 innocent man?
The 15 yard penalty on the kickoff was enough punishment IMO. We have seen that change the outcome of multiple games (and some on bad calls). So it was a sever punishment. But at least the play stood. I think it’s bad policy to allow refs to take points off the board and erase a play based on such a subjective call which has nothing at all to do with one team gaining a competitive edge.
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
This ain't murder, jail, or criminal law.
It’s football, and football rules. Right or wrong, the powers that be in CFB don’t want “Look at me” style celebrations. If they don’t want it in their game they have to come up with a penalty that will discourage the players from doing it. Plus, the refs aren’t taking anything off the board if the foul occurred before crossing the goal line. A holding call on the opposite sideline of a player running free to the end zone has the same effect. The team didn’t gain a competitive edge there either.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
They are taking points off the board. Don’t be daft.
Holding provides an unfair advantage. Whether it actually affects the outcome of a play is irrelevant to how the penalty has to be enforced. Because it CAN affect the outcome, the penalty has to change the outcome.
Do you think UT should have gotten the ball back with another chance to kick a winning FG in 2009 because Cody took his helm off slightly before the play ended? Because that’s what this rule does. And there are plenty more ridiculous ways that this rule will screw up games.
So yea, we probably wouldn’t have gotten #13 if this rule was in place back then… all because a player took his helmet off in glee after one of the biggest plays in our programs history. GREAT RULE!
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
by Zoltar on Sep 13, 2011 1:30 PM CDT up reply actions 1 recs
You're just...wrong.
Do you think UT should have gotten the ball back with another chance to kick a winning FG in 2009 because Cody took his helm off slightly before the play ended?
The play was over, as this was a post-possession foul. Once the ball is kicked, it’s kicked. No penalty that occurs after the kick gives the ball back to the kicking team. And not all rules are designed to prevent unfair advantage. Many are designed with safety in mind. This one for some appearance of sportsmanship.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
No, the exact quote of the SEC’s explanation was “it is a live ball foul, treated as a dead ball penalty”. This is exactly the rule that has been changed.
The play was still going on when he took off his helmet. The play isn’t over as soon as the kick is blocked.
No penalty that occurs after the kick gives the ball back to the kicking team.
Roughing the kicker?
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
It's not the same thing.
It just isn’t. If, say, we blocked the kick, Julio grabbed it and was returning it for a td and ripped off his helmet during the run, THAT would be what we’re talking about. And even in that scenario, UT wouldn’t have gotten the ball back, so it wouldn’t have cost us the game.
No way you slice it would have given UT another kick.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
by Slice of Life on Sep 13, 2011 2:21 PM CDT up reply actions
Sorry, but you are wrong.
Taking your helmet off during a play is the same foul as high stepping. Since it would now be considered a live ball foul AND enforced as such, it would have given UT 15 yards and the ball. It would be the same as if we had roughed the kicker.
"Those are just facts and facts are just opinions and opinions can be wrong"
-Veronica, Better Off Ted
Live ball is irrelevant as it relates to Rocky Block.
I really don’t know why you brought this up, as the rule change applies to TD plays. The key to a completed kick is that it goes beyond the line of scrimmage (which explains roughing the kicker). Once that happens possession has changed. If you watch the Rocky block play, the ball trickled past the LOS after the block. I guess you could dicker about exactly when the ball crossed the line vs. when the helmet came off, but the Tennessee players essentially conceded by ignoring the ball anyway. Besides, it didn’t really matter since both sidelines were emptying out onto the field. Had there been time left on the clock there, the proper call would have been Bama ball fifteen yards backward from the end of the kick. Of course, had there been time on the clock he never would have been celebrating the same way so the whole argument is moot. No way in hell any official is throwing a flag and trying to clear the field under those circumstances.
'There are two pains in life. There is the pain of discipline and the pain of disappointment. If you can handle the pain of discipline, then you'll never have to deal with the pain of disappointment,'- Nick Saban
The refs have always been able to take points off the board and erase a play based on subjective calls.
God bless our Dark Lord.
I agree.
Also, the stuff that will invoke this rule (high stepping, pointing, diving into the end zone) are things that really AREN’T very subjective. It’s a misleading premise that people tend to lean on.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." - George Carlin
by Slice of Life on Sep 13, 2011 12:16 PM CDT up reply actions
After they reviewed a TD at the Capital One Bowl and reversed the call
My 11 year old sister turned to my dad and said “Dad, can they take points off like that? Are the others safe?!”
Not totally relevant, but an adorable story.
Dave Robertson is growing up to be the new Mariano Rivera. My two universes of fandom can finally unite!
by SoGladILeftTheACC on Sep 14, 2011 7:41 AM CDT up reply actions
*by* all means...
"We run this state, we run this stadium. Now let's go out there and run their ass in the ground"
Something Similar at Ann Arbor
Last play of the game, ND fumbled squib kickoff. Mich player recovered and appeared to extend ball over goal line before fumbling when he hit the turf. Don’t know what the line was…..
The USC thing
was the equivalent of players mobbing a guy at home plate after a walk-off home run. Technically, they’re on the field when they shouldn’t be, but it has zero to do with the outcome. The score should have counted all along.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
