That was my original thought. Because it makes sense that Lanning doesn’t just outright admit it. He talks in circles about things they work o.
Was Oregon Cheating or Playing Smart?
- Thread starter horshack.sixpack
- Start date
Not sure what you mean here. This was in response to a gif that implied the only purpose was to "win the game."
Never did I say if we allow this then this. This was in direct response to a post that implied that the only thing that mattered was to win the game. Didn't mean to confuse the two arguments.
But 2 seconds for 5 free yards is still a net win for the offense in just about any scenario where this particular call by Oregon would have been advantageous for them. 5-6 seconds or less remaining, you’ve only got one play left, anyway. So, you could run it with 5-6 seconds left, or run it with 3-4 seconds left and do it 5 yards further upfield.
7 or 8 seconds left, you still might have only one play left….maybe two. But if you have 2 plays left, at least one has to be a very quick 3-6 yard checkdown and get OOB or call timeout. So, you can either try to run that 3-6 yard play and not have a bad snap / sack / incompletion / drop / not get out of bounds / fumble / offensive game ending penalty / other undesirable result, and still have it take a minimum of 4-5 seconds, or you can get 5 free yards, have 5 seconds left, and still run a play.
9-10 seconds left, you’re more into that 2-play territory, but you could still have 2 plays left even with 2 fewer seconds….and you gain 5 yards.
The bottom line is that this only worked due to the element of surprise. Lanning was counting on OSU not immediately recognizing what was happening, and continuing to run their play. If the OSU QB had simply recognized the extra player and then snapped and spiked, its advantage Buckeyes.
I edited my post to include more appropriate options. Intentional illegal shift would accomplish the same goal.
Because running 30 guys out there is more obvious that something is afoot. More likely that the opposing coach or QB calls timeout or the QB recognizes that it’s a truly free play.
I've always wondered about this. Intentional fouls (or penalties in football) should be met with extreme punishment. Seems to me it's referees looking the other way in both circumstances.
OT:
Ok, give me answer to this Q:
Let’s say u are out of time outs, u are at 50 yard line, there are 20 seconds left, u need a TD to tie the game and u don’t want to “fake” an injury. Let’s say u call a TO (while knowing u don’t have one) to try to stop the clock. Would there be a delay of game 5 yard penalty and would the clock NOT start back until ball is snapped?
In BB I believe a tech is called if u call a TO w/o having any left, correct?
What say y’all??
Ok, give me answer to this Q:
Let’s say u are out of time outs, u are at 50 yard line, there are 20 seconds left, u need a TD to tie the game and u don’t want to “fake” an injury. Let’s say u call a TO (while knowing u don’t have one) to try to stop the clock. Would there be a delay of game 5 yard penalty and would the clock NOT start back until ball is snapped?
In BB I believe a tech is called if u call a TO w/o having any left, correct?
What say y’all??
Loopholes are just following the rules though. That term is used as a pejorative, but it isnt cheating or dishonorable or anything like that- its following the rules.
If enough people dont like the rule, then they will address the situation and adjust the rule.
Have to disagree. There is a thing called ethics which addresses the myriad of things that cannot possibly be covered under any set of rules no matter how complete. There simply can't be a rule for everything. See US Constitution as a set of rules and guidelines.
Clock starts on the ready for play in that situation. As it was running when play was stopped for the penalty. (NFHS anyway)
That is the difference, basketball has the ability to call a technical, shoot free throws, and give the ball right back to the team on offense. That would eliminate the advantage. They are now talking about the ability to put time back on the clock. They should give the team on offense the choice on if they want the time added back.
Exactly.
There are two discussions:
- Is what Lanning did cheating/unethical/etc? The clear answer is No.
- Should the rules be changed to prevent what Lanning did? That is an open debate.
This could be a simple rule change. If the clock is stopped and it's within the last two minutes of a half, it becomes a pre-snap penalty.
I am aware of the sprit of the law vs the letter of the law.
Thing is, following the letter of the law is not unethical.
Sports change rules all the time to address the very thing you are saying can't be addressed.
Last year's big thing was 'tush push' in the NFL, which is still the most insane name.
A creative way to comply with the rules was put into play, some complained, and the NFL so far has chosen to continue to allow it.
Smart and technically within the rules unlike faking injuries! Not much different than defensive PI to take a 15 yard penalty than give up a big gain.
When you "follow the letter of the law" to gain an unfair advantage it is the very definition of unethical and unsportsmanlike. Maybe we just have different values. So be it.
The real issue is that you are taking an objective issue and applying a subjective viewpoint to it.
You are saying an 'unfair advantage' is created when that isn't actually what's happening.
- all teams can utilize the claimed advantage, therefore it is not unfair.
- the rules allow for the claimed advantage, therefore it is not unfair.
Once more, if an unintended consequence has been discovered and implemented, and the league wants it to stop, then they can adjust the rules.
It's that simple. This isn't a question of ethics and isn't a question of values. You can try to claim it is, since that is the only way you can try to justify your emotional viewpoint, but that doesn't mean your claim has merit.
Get unlimited access today.