VoyForums
[ Show ]
Support VoyForums
[ Shrink ]
VoyForums Announcement: Programming and providing support for this service has been a labor of love since 1997. We are one of the few services online who values our users' privacy, and have never sold your information. We have even fought hard to defend your privacy in legal cases; however, we've done it with almost no financial support -- paying out of pocket to continue providing the service. Due to the issues imposed on us by advertisers, we also stopped hosting most ads on the forums many years ago. We hope you appreciate our efforts.

Show your support by donating any amount. (Note: We are still technically a for-profit company, so your contribution is not tax-deductible.) PayPal Acct: Feedback:

Donate to VoyForums (PayPal):

Login ] [ Contact Forum Admin ] [ Main index ] [ Post a new message ] [ Search | Check update time | Archives: 12345678910 ]
Subject: Re: Kerfuffle: 5% Probability That Eisgruber Forfeits The Win


Author:
An Observer
[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]
Date Posted: 17:26:00 11/15/21 Mon
In reply to: An Observer 's message, "Kerfuffle: 5% Probability That Eisgruber Forfeits The Win" on 13:52:43 10/25/21 Mon

The 5% probability is indeed now zero. The only scenario which would have kept it above zero is Harvard and Princeton both winning out. I would have loved the continuing kerfuffle of a 10-0 Princeton and 9-1 Harvard bickering over this one for the rest of time.

By the way, no more return calls from the NCAA. They've gone silent, too, just like the League office.

[ Next Thread | Previous Thread | Next Message | Previous Message ]

Replies:
[> Subject: Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst


Author:
An Observer
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 00:17:13 12/24/21 Fri

I have been trying for some time to reach any one of the college football rules analysts that we watch on television for their take on the Harvard-Princeton kerfuffle. It hasn't been easy, but I've finally gotten through to somebody who was willing to share his opinion.

As a courtesy to him, as I did with the NCAA official I contacted, I will decline to name him, only to say that you hear his name and voice on television every Saturday in the fall.

To summarize my dialogue with him, there is no new information.

He started with a good overview by calling the Princeton-Harvard game "an unfortunate situation" that "will be debated" by officials and the teams involved alike.

To fit his opinion within the framework which we have already discussed, here is his "take":

(1) It's a terrible idea to let coaches ask for a time-out after a play has been run, for all the reasons which we have already discussed on this board. The example which this analyst hypothesized is one that we have debated here: What do you do if Harvard fails in its two-point conversion attempt? Let Harvard try another one because Surace called time-out before the snap?

(2) While it's a terrible idea to let coaches ask for a time out after a play has been run, there is no rule in the NCAA rule book forbidding this.

(3) Because this is not expressly addressed by the NCAA rule book, this situation is a judgment call for the officials at the game.

(4) My respondent pointedly said, "Just because the rule book doesn't specifically say you can't do something doesn't mean you can do something."

(5) If you're going to go by the letter of the law, nothing in the NCAA rule book supersedes Article 7. And we know what Article 7 says.

So there you have it. Again.

It's "an unfortunate situation" all right. Except for those of us who find it to be the most entertaining thing to come out of the 2021 season. Maybe any season. Long live the kerfuffle!

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:32:47 12/24/21 Fri

Thanks for bird dogging this. Three comments:

1) Surace was not calling a timeout after the play, he was calling it before the play was run. As for the effect of allowing a timeout, it's no worse than when a coach tries to call a time out an instant before a kicker kicks, or a key final play is being run and the defense wants to see what offensive set is being used. Of course it is SOP to see a play begin and the refs run in to stop it for things like illegal procedure, or for that matter when an offensive penalty is enforced after a play is completed but must be re-run. Not to mention the entire point of replay is allow the possibility of running a play over again, depending upon the situation.

2) Yes, had Harvard's attempt failed, they should have been given another chance. I don't think anyone from the Princeton side has argued for inconsistent application of the rule.

3) This is not a case of doing something the rulebook fails to say you cannot do, rather it is a case of doing something the rulebook expressly says you (the replay offical) CAN do.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst


Author:
sparman
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 08:39:21 12/24/21 Fri

Meant to say the "point of allowing challenges and replay", not just "point of replay".

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst


Author:
Two Cents
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 09:22:52 12/24/21 Fri

Thanks for following up on this. So did the rules expert feel the timeout should have been given to Surace via a replay review?

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> Subject: Re: Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst


Author:
2-cents worth
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 10:27:12 12/24/21 Fri

Whatever happens, get that ridiculous Option #2, deciding a 60-munute tie game with a 2-yard,fourth down play.

Regular game ends in tie: Start each team at the 40 yard line, with one timeout and clock set on 2-mimutes.

Limit 2 attempts; no result is tie, like it or not.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]
[> [> [> Subject: Re: Have Finally Succeeded in Reaching A Television Rules Analyst


Author:
Watkins
[ Edit | View ]

Date Posted: 19:26:39 12/26/21 Sun

I agree with Two Cents Worth that the dueling two-point conversion attempts are akin to penalty kicks in soccer, entertaining to be sure, but no longer the sport which was played in regulation time.

[ Post a Reply to This Message ]


Login ] Create Account Not required to post.
Post a public reply to this message | Go post a new public message
* HTML allowed in marked fields.
* Message subject (required):

Name (required):

  Expression (Optional mood/title along with your name) Examples: (happy, sad, The Joyful, etc.) help)

  E-mail address (optional):

* Type your message here:


Notice: Copies of your message may remain on this and other systems on internet. Please be respectful.

[ Contact Forum Admin ]


Forum timezone: GMT-5
VF Version: 3.00b, ConfDB:
Before posting please read our privacy policy.
VoyForums(tm) is a Free Service from Voyager Info-Systems.
Copyright © 1998-2019 Voyager Info-Systems. All Rights Reserved.