Intentionally put 12 men on the field to kill time, knowing he'd take the 5 yards and time run off as a good trade off.
Dan Lanning Did it On Purpose
Dan Lanning Did it On Purpose
Was Oregon Cheating or Playing Smart?
- Thread starter horshack.sixpack
- Start date
It's a form of the Buddy Ryan Polish Goalline defense
Definitely more ethical gamesmanship than faking an injury.
Playing smart. Taking advantage of a rule. That’s called smart. You play to win the game.
I honestly wish that every time Ole Miss gets a first down in our game, whoever was going to sub out anyway is instructed to fall to the ground in dramatic fashion. Instead of the turnover chain, we could have a large gold chain with a fake Emmy Award on it and hand it out each time to the best performer.
Surely if it’s intentional it’s an unsportsmanlike conduct penalty. Otherwise what keeps him from putting all 85 guys out there. I think that’s probably why he was kind of coy in his admission.
Also Terry Mcauley said this was a dead ball penalty a few years ago and they changed the rule
Also Terry Mcauley said this was a dead ball penalty a few years ago and they changed the rule
Make it a fake Oscar. More recognizable than an Emmy, which I'm not even sure what that looks like...man holding see through grid globe?
That last drive was a cluster for Ohio State. Another Ryan Day special. 2nd and 10, already in FG range (the Oregon 28, that's a 45 yarder), with 22 seconds left and one time out, you run the ball. But no, he elects to pass, which results in a 15 yard OPI and a loss of 12 seconds. Now OSU is out of FG range, has 10 seconds left, and still the 1 TO. He was too worried about saving that time out. If he had run the ball, chances are good that it's going to be a decent gain, because Oregon was playing pass all the way. So, maybe you get the 1st, the clock stops long enough for you to line up and run one more play and still keep your TO. Or, you could spike it if you made the first down. If you don't make the first, you can still let the clock run down and either spike it (if you want to save the last TO for some reason) or just call the TO. You would have run it into the middle of the field and you're probably trying around a 40 yard FG to win the game. But, no, he wanted to throw the ball. Passing just gets dangerous in those situations. You could get a holding call, throw an INT, get an OPI, get sacked, etc. Just run the dang ball there.
Secondly, I don't really find that to be such a high IQ move by Lanning (the 12 man thing). That's a free play for the offense. It worked, I guess they did it late enough that OSU didn't notice. But, if Howard saw that, he should have heaved one way down the field. Then, you could decline the penalty and kick your FG (if you didn't just heave it to the end zone and get lucky). That was a crazy gamble for 4 seconds. But, it worked. So, more power to him. Again, I think it goes more towards Ryan Day and his poor coaching than it being some great high-IQ move. Ryan Day just seems to make a lot of dumb moves in close/big games.
Secondly, I don't really find that to be such a high IQ move by Lanning (the 12 man thing). That's a free play for the offense. It worked, I guess they did it late enough that OSU didn't notice. But, if Howard saw that, he should have heaved one way down the field. Then, you could decline the penalty and kick your FG (if you didn't just heave it to the end zone and get lucky). That was a crazy gamble for 4 seconds. But, it worked. So, more power to him. Again, I think it goes more towards Ryan Day and his poor coaching than it being some great high-IQ move. Ryan Day just seems to make a lot of dumb moves in close/big games.
UNC did the same thing against Tennessee in the 2010 Music City Bowl which caused the rule change. I remember watching that game. Basically, UNC was down 3 in the closing seconds and intentionally sent too many players onto the field and caused a penalty which stopped the clock. They were then able to spike it and leave 1 second left, which gave them a field goal opportunity to tie the game and then win it in overtime.
The NCAA changed the rule the next year to enforce a 10 second runoff in that situation, which Oregon just used to their advantage.
The NCAA changed the rule the next year to enforce a 10 second runoff in that situation, which Oregon just used to their advantage.
Unethical. Same as faking an injury. Both take advantage of a rule loophole. Both are a b*tch move.
Is it a ***** move to foul at the end of a basketball game to stop the clock?
No. That's part of the game, expected, and well established. The other team is usually shooting free throws, and can much more easily make you pay for it. Different game entirely. Apples to oranges.
Edited to add that if you ran out a 6th player to foul, yes, it would be a b*tch move.
The losing team is the one fouling. And the fouled team gets rewarded with free throws.
I ask again though - what keeps him from running his entire roster into the field on that play?
I’m all for this but only when we get down 3 scores. Might get to do it before the half.
But... somebody had to be the first person to employ that strategy. It only becomes well established after somebody starts doing it and others catch on.
So if what Oregon did is replicated enough for it to be "part of the game, expected, and well established," it will no longer be a ***** move?
It's not on Oregon to not do everything within the rules to win the game. If they found a loophole, it's on the rules committee to change the rules.
Are there other examples of coaches not doing something within the rules to try to win the game?
What about fouling up three at the end of a basketball game?
Exactly. Either this will be replicated and become common, or the rules committee will legislate it away. Either way, Oregon didn't do anything wrong this past Saturday.
Not if it’s an effort to get the ball. That’s why there are different penalties for a flagrant foul.
I don’t have an issue with that. The clock stops and the fouled team still gets free throws. And as noted if it were an issue they would have changed the rule by now. It’s been going on forever. Everyone agrees it’s fine. No one agrees what Oregon did is fine.
If you run 6 players onto the court though it’s a technical foul. Again I think this is supposed to be unsportsmanlike conduct if it’s intentional. So 15 yds.
Don’t see how it’d be unsportsmanlike at all. No different than intentionally taking delay of game to get more room to punt. Putting 12 out there intentionally was smart because it looks accidental so maybe the opposing coach doesn’t think too much about just taking the penalty, and if somehow refs don’t notice you get an advantage. You put 85 out there, its obvious to the opposing coach that you’re doing it on purpose for some reason, and they just decline the penalty.
In the Eagles-Falcons game a few weeks ago there was a similar situation. Eagles had 3rd and 1 deep in Falcons territory, with the clock stopped, in a game where they were up by 3. Time running down. In other words, with the tush push, they had an automatic first down and therefore they automatically had at least 5 more plays to run clock. Atlanta coaches realize this, and so they instructed the DL to intentionally jump into neutral zone and just give them the 1st down, so there’s one less play they can run. But they were too brazen with it. Eagles coach realized why they did it, and declined the penalty. They were smart enough to do that, yet dumb enough to throw pass on 3rd and short a few plays later that was dropped, forcing them to kick a FG, and then Cousins took ATL the length of the field in less than a minute for the winning TD.
But in this example Ohio State can’t undo the advantage Oregon gained by declining the penalty. The time ran off. That was the point of it. If you run 85 guys out there, the time runs off the clock whether you take the penalty or not It’s why Terry Mcauley said it was a huge mistake when CFB changed the rule to make it a live ball foul.
The point and only point of the rules are to make for fair play or to help ensure safety. Finding a loophole to circumvent that is unethical. It's unethical in any rule set in life, business, relationships, anywhere. The fact that no set of rules can anticipate any and every machination of every shady MF out there requires that people under those rules operate with a set of ethical standards that includes adherence to the intent and spirit of the rule set. And, of course, there are always shady b*tches who will violate that.
Well, then just intentionally break the QB and RB's leg, and take the foul. No problem. Just taking advantage of the rules. We took our penalty!
You said, "Apples to oranges," when asked about the difference between intentionally fouling in basketball to stop the clock and intentionally committing a penalty in football to waste time.
I think you just perfectly demonstrated the slippery slope fallacy
That sounds like its managed a bit differently than the NFL rule. But regardless, it’s not an automatic time run-off, and definitely not unsportsmanlike to do something that’s well within the rules. I think it’s just another strategic thing that teams have to prepare for.
In this case, I think the way to combat it is to do one of two things:
1) Just have QB snap it and spike it immediately when you see that defender run on. It’s the QB’s job to always know how many defenders are out there anyway when they snap the ball. That way you take maybe 1 second, and you get 5 yards.
2) Offense can do an intentional illegal shift, or run their own extra player on, if they see the guy run on. This is also not dead ball, and would certainly result in off-setting penalties / replay the down / reset the clock.
3) Have an OL false start immediately if extra defender is on the field. This would potentially be offsetting penalties / replay the down….with no time run-off. But if not, just have some signal where you know it is the absolute most free play imaginable. All 5 OL hold the shít out of the DL, WR’s run rub routes and tackle other DB’s to get one guy wide open for a certain TD. Something like that.
Either way, this is one of those things that will only happen once. Teams will know how to combat it now by doing one of those 3 things. And if they aren’t aware enough of the possibility to put something into place, then the joke’s on them. Maybe they’ll change the rule, but if not you just have to prepare.
ETA: And also, I think any player running onto the field AFTER the snap is certainly a 15 yard unsportsmanlike, even if they don’t get involved in the play. So defense is playing with fire already by trying to time it perfectly to do it right before the snap. So a quick snap count is another way to combat it.
Last edited:
1 is the best option but you really have to be sharp and it still runs off a minimum of 2 seconds.
2. I don’t think that offset bc the ball isn’t live so there is no penalty on the defense. As for intentionally committing an offensive penalty that’s exactly what Lanning would want. Time running off.
but my ultimate question is why not run 30 guys out there? Do we all agree 12 is the same as 30 or 85 in this instance? Because that seems wild.
On what grounds? But yeah this is what I’m looking for. What’s the difference and why?
Chaos. Refs can stop any play before it starts whenever they feel necessary. I get your point, but if the play was stopped before it started, then no seconds would tick off the clock. Right? You want to prevent a long pass and get a penalty here, but you want the play to happen.
I don’t think I’ve ever seen a play stopped for chaos when it didn’t involve a fight or non-players on the field. What if they calmly walk on the field? I mean you have to have a reason. But even then what’s the line?-15 guys? 25? The ref has to have a reason for them to leave the field.
It's a little murky, but I think if you send 85 guys out there on defense, it could qualify under this stipulation of unsportsmanlike conduct:
"No substitute(s) may enter the field of play or end zones for purposes other than replacing a player(s) or to fill a player vacancy(ies). This includes demonstrations after any play (A.R. 9-2-1-I)."
Apparently the best solution is to let the play clock run down and for whatever reason the penalty is only enforced against the defense. Mcauley says it’s unsupported by the rule itself but is buried in a football case book and is also a “tacit admission” that the rule is flawed.
Its a master class in game and time management. Dan Mullen could have used some pointers from Lanning.
Same as the fainting goat, if the powers that be want to change it, then change it. All those "Smartest People in the Room" should be able to come up with something to stop it.
Same as the fainting goat, if the powers that be want to change it, then change it. All those "Smartest People in the Room" should be able to come up with something to stop it.
Latest posts
Get unlimited access today.