David Marsh No. 1 Share Posted October 13 Did Lanning intentionally take a time out to then put too many players on the field? It's 5 yards but it stops Ohio State from getting an easier chunk of yardage. It looks potentially intentional... And if it was that is next level. 6 seconds left on the clock was only enough time to throw a quick pass and a time out to then kick it for a long field goal. Instead OSU killed the clock and gave us the win. 1 2 1 2 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonDucks No. 2 Share Posted October 13 Surprised that it wouldn't be a dead ball foul with time added back to the clock. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh Author No. 3 Share Posted October 13 On 10/12/2024 at 10:18 PM, OregonDucks said: Surprised that it wouldn't be a dead ball foul with time added back to the clock. I don't think this type of play is a dead ball foul. I think it's like off sides that let's the play go and let's the offense choose which result they want. The fact that Lanning called a time out before puttinng 12 players on the field is what kinda indicates this may have been intentional. At this point in the game with field position where it was the trade off for time for yards was certainly a good one. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jon Joseph Moderator No. 4 Share Posted October 13 Where have you gone Mr. Mari(o?) Ducks' nation (again) says a fond goodbye to YOU! 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElPatoUO No. 5 Share Posted October 13 If you watched Arizona State vs. UCLA last season, you saw Dillingham taking advantage of these penalty/clock rules in their upset of UCLA. It wasn't the exact same situation (Dillingham was more blatant, taking penalty after penalty in order to waste 90+ seconds of clock), but there is no doubt that Lanning is aware of, and has put a lot of thought into, how to use all of these nuanced rules to his advantage. Of course, that doesn't automatically mean everything that happens has a purpose, rather than being a mistake, but in this particular instance, I think it is much more likely than not that it was intentional. Well done Dano. 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Moderator No. 6 Share Posted October 13 Day is being roasted on the Buckeyes fan boards, Overall, he has a great record, but he's lost 3 straight to Michigan, and now that's 2 straight, home and on the road, to Oregon. Any way you look at it, Lanning out coached him. This was a great move, and whether it was intended as an on attempt at an on side, or just a squib, that too was brilliant. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Duck No. 7 Share Posted October 13 (edited) I'm not sure on this one, but you certainly could be right. That's a lot of CPU processing in a very tight window. But if he did deliberately do it, that's some rather genius stuff right there. What I do know for certain is that kick-off play where our kicker drilled the OSU player was absolutely deliberate. Lanning, knowing that we had a 15 yard penalty on OSU to enforce, decided to go for the semi-onside kick. Even if OSU recovered the ball on say their own 40, after the 15 yards was enforced, they'd be on their own 25. No big loss or deal. When I watched the play, I thought the whole thing was a mistaken kick. This decision making process seems like some next level coaching to me. Edited October 13 by Desert Duck 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck No. 8 Share Posted October 13 Two pictures, one is Mariø at the end of a game, the other Lanning! 4 1 2 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastBayDuckDad Moderator No. 9 Share Posted October 13 If it was intentional, it was the most brilliant situational use of the rule book I've ever seen. It may spawn a whole new defensive lexicon and position package: Nickel, Dime and 12 cents. Along with the laser beam onside kick it is one of the greatest 'big balls calls' ever in Autzen. 1 1 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Duck No. 10 Share Posted October 13 I'm not convinced. The 5 yard penalty put OSU on the 38, making that a 55 yard field goal attempt -- which is in range for their FG kicker. 6 seconds gave them enough time for them to have attempted a quick slant route to pick up another 5 to 10 yards to shorten the FG attempt. While I'd like to believe the 12 men on the field was deliberate, I'm going to need to hear one of our coaches say it was... like Lanning did on our awesome kickoff play. I think OSU just melted at the end and the QB finally made a bone head play. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck No. 11 Share Posted October 13 On 10/13/2024 at 7:39 AM, EastBayDuckDad said: If it was intentional, it was the most brilliant situational use of the rule book I've ever seen. It may spawn a whole new defensive lexicon and position package: Nickel, Dime and 12 cents. Along with the laser beam onside kick it is one of the greatest 'big balls calls' ever in Autzen. Don't you just love opposing coaches, once again, saying what Oregon is doing isn't fair! All is right in Eugene Oregon again, well done Coach Lanning 3 1 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonDucks No. 12 Share Posted October 13 (edited) On 10/13/2024 at 7:51 AM, 30Duck said: This was a great move, and whether it was intended as an on attempt at an on side, or just a squib, that too was brilliant. Coach Lanning said, in his post game press conference, that the kickoff that hit the Ohio State player was intentional. If it missed, it would have been a squib kick. I've never seen that. Edited October 13 by OregonDucks 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Duck No. 13 Share Posted October 13 (edited) "Coach Lanning said, in his post game press conference, that the kickoff that hit the Ohio State player was intentional. If it missed, it would have been a squib kick. I've never seen that." Keep in mind that OSU had incurred a 15-yard penalty on the previous play which was going to be assessed after they got the ball. So, even if they did recover the squib on their own 40, after the penalty, they would have been on their 25-yard line. Rather low risk, with high reward potential. And my goodness, did it pay off or what! IMHO, I would say that is some rather next level coaching stuff going on right there. Edited October 13 by Desert Duck 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
DuckFan93 No. 14 Share Posted October 13 (edited) Actually I disagree. Without the timeout, we would have sacked their QB and ended the game there, right? So I guess it's a brilliant penalty since it worked in our favor. Quite a gamble, I would say. Hope DL really is that sneaky, LOL. Just a crazy ending to a classic battle. It really was anyone's game. Go Ducks! Edited October 13 by DuckFan93 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh Author No. 15 Share Posted October 13 On 10/13/2024 at 11:02 AM, DuckFan93 said: Actually I disagree. Without the timeout, we would have sacked their QB and ended the game there, right? I think the QB contact was due to the whistle blowing and Ohio State players stopping what they were doing. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ElPatoUO No. 16 Share Posted October 13 On 10/13/2024 at 8:05 AM, Desert Duck said: Keep in mind that OSU had incurred a 15-yard penalty on the previous play which was going to be assessed after they got the ball. So, even if they did recover the squib on their own 40, after the penalty, they would have been on their 25-yard line. That isn't how the penalty works. The penalty is assessed prior to the kick, meaning the Ducks were kicking from the 50 yard line rather than the 35. The penalty is not assessed after the team recovers the ball. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Duck No. 17 Share Posted October 13 Well, I liked my theory... until you just pointed out that my penalty understanding 100% wrong. Thanks for setting me straight. So, Lanning's call here really took some huge coconuts. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
HDuck No. 18 Share Posted October 14 Neuheisel talked about this on Monday morning on Dan Patrick. He said smart defensive guys understand the situation. He said he was coaching UCLA in 2009 and hosting ASU at the Rose Bowl. Same thing happened. UCLA recovered a fumble deep in ASU territory with a bit over a minute left in the first half. UCLA got a big run that went to the ASU 4. The clock was moving with under 10 secs. left. ASU was penalized for 13 men on the field which moved the ball to the 2 yd line, then clock continued. Forced UCLA to take a timeout with 3 secs. left and attempt a field goal instead of a chance for a TD they would have attempted prior to 13 defenders penalty call. He had no doubt that ASU's 13 defenders was intentional. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonDucks No. 19 Share Posted October 15 (edited) Coach Lanning was asked whether the 12 men on the field was intentional during his press conference this afternoon. He didn't outright admit or deny it but said that the team prepares for all situations and you can see the result. LOL. It was totally intentional. Well done, sir. Freakin' genius! Edited October 15 by OregonDucks 1 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Annie No. 20 Share Posted October 15 On 10/13/2024 at 7:57 AM, OregonDucks said: Coach Lanning said, in his post game press conference, that the kickoff that hit the Ohio State player was intentional. If it missed, it would have been a squib kick. I've never seen that. That was the most amazing squib/onside kick I've ever seen! Wham, hits the OSU player and comes straight back to the Ducks! Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
QuackyQuack No. 21 Share Posted October 15 What makes it even sweeter is that the kick bounced off of Denzel Burke who got absolutely torched all night by DG. He sure had a night he wants to forget. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh Author No. 22 Share Posted October 15 On 10/14/2024 at 8:20 PM, QuackyQuack said: He sure had a night he wants to forget. Everyone in the media and Ohio State seemed to forget 2021 ever happened. I mean I have seriously been questioning whether that ever happened because the last match up ever referenced is 2015 which Oregon lost. It already feels like everyone is forgetting that Ohio State lost this one as there are so many declarations that Ohio State is the better team. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 23 Share Posted October 15 Ohio State? Oh yeah...the team that hasn't beat Oregon in a decade. Ho-Hum... Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
EastBayDuckDad Moderator No. 24 Share Posted October 15 So now we know that the 12th man penalty was intentional to run time off the clock, even if DL won't directly admit it. Freaking genius and something that the defense oriented mind comes up with (from one that won a NC, which I don't recall Ryan Day doing yet). As a side comment (start of rant) too many pundits have weighed in on the final drive OPI, saying it shouldn't have been called. Joel Klatt and Colin Cowherd to name a couple. Watch the tape. Several times and in slo-mo. Does it fulfill the obligation that the offensive player "Pushes Off: Initiates contact with a defender to create separation in an attempt to catch a pass"? It doesn't matter if the zebras have swallowed their whistles and 'let them play' up to that point. Is it a penalty or not? Nikko Reed flies back 3-4 yards after the contact, which is clearly initiated by #4 in a tOSU uniform. The separation created allows Smith to catch the ball. I don't give a shirt if it shifted the game in the Ducks favor. It was OPI, clear and simple, and the right call. The subsequent 12th man play only succeeded because the refs made the right call on OPI. Bucknut coaches, players, fans and the national pundits can whine about how tOSU was the better team, lost because of the refs, isolated mistakes, the miscues of Ryan Day or Knowles, or Oregon just got lucky. Oregon won. Left at least five, and possibly more, points on the table. Didn't bring the A+ game and still beat Ohio State. They beat tOSU on the ground and in the air. Exposed the vulnerability of an 'NFL caliber' secondary. Did just enough in the run game to help Jordan James get 115 yds against an 'NFL caliber' D-line. Protected DG enough to not take a sack, help him into the endzone on a perfect run option read play and allow him to drop dimes to EStew and Tez. Bucknut will get another shot at the Ducks in December, if they win out. Good for them. If so, it'll be a helluva game. That's then, this is now. Oregon beat THEosu Saturday and won round one. Fans of OBD see it clear as day even if the blue-blooders are conflicted. Enough of this rant. Move on to West Lafayette, Indiana and beat the Boilermakers! 1 2 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
OregonDucks No. 25 Share Posted October 15 (edited) On 10/15/2024 at 1:10 AM, EastBayDuckDad said: Watch the tape. Several times and in slo-mo. Does it fulfill the obligation that the offensive player "Pushes Off: Initiates contact with a defender to create separation in an attempt to catch a pass"? It doesn't matter if the zebras have swallowed their whistles and 'let them play' up to that point. Is it a penalty or not? Nikko Reed flies back 3-4 yards after the contact, which is clearly initiated by #4 in a tOSU uniform. The separation created allows Smith to catch the ball. I'm sure that the officials didn't want to call that offensive PI, in that situation, but it was so blatant that they had no choice. I don't know what the talking heads are looking at. The Ohio State WR pushed off the Oregon DB (up high) and sent him 3-4 yards backwards to create separation. That's the very definition of offensive PI. I've seen some people question Chip and Day's decision to throw the ball in that situation. Ohio State was already in field goal range and had a TO remaining. They could have run the ball to try to pick up a few more yards and then called their final TO to set up the FG unit. It's a shame that Oregon is not getting the full credit for the win, on the national stage. Keep winning and get ready for a potential rematch. Edited October 15 by OregonDucks 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smith72 Moderator No. 26 Share Posted October 15 "There’s some situations that don’t show up very often in college football but this is one that, obviously, was something we had worked on. You can see the result,” Lanning said. Did Oregon Ducks’ Dan Lanning Admit to Intentional Penalty in Win Over Ohio State? WWW.SI.COM It’s a topic that’s floated around social media since the Oregon Ducks’ nail-biting victory over the Ohio State Buckeyes: did Oregon coach Dan Lanning intention Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbmichaels No. 27 Share Posted October 15 I'm fully prepared to get dog-piled on for this, but I'm not personally a fan of flirting with these loopholes in the rule book. The penalty for this would be different if meant to combat coaches intentionally abusing the system by running additional players on to the field. The penalty was what it was because the assumption is that the substitution in the heat of the moment mistakenly left an additional player out there. In other words, there is some level of trust built into the penalty system, not so unlike stopping the clock with no penalty for an injured player. We weren't so fond of that back in the day, were we? And yet, I seem to recall the Ducks using that tactic during one of the UW games last year as well, with the player basically admitting as much after the game. My mind goes back to the boos raining down from Autzen as "injured" Cal D-linemen kept flopping on the ball before it could be snapped. I can't quite remember - who was the Cal D-line coach back then...? I'd rather see them play it straight. Just my 2 cents. Let the piling begin. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
NJDuck Moderator No. 28 Share Posted October 15 On 10/13/2024 at 2:22 AM, David Marsh said: I don't think this type of play is a dead ball foul. I think it's like off sides that let's the play go and let's the offense choose which result they want. The fact that Lanning called a time out before puttinng 12 players on the field is what kinda indicates this may have been intentional. At this point in the game with field position where it was the trade off for time for yards was certainly a good one. I agree. Dan Lanning Confirms He Got Intentional Penalty Against Ohio State "There was a timeout before that. We spend an inordinate amount of time on situations," Lanning said on Monday. "There are some situations that don't show up very often in college football, but this was one that obviously was something we had worked on. So, you can see the result." Lanning's comments seem to confirm that Oregon took the penalty intentionally. After it was assessed, Ohio State failed to complete a pass, taking four seconds off the clock. Buckeyes quarterback Will Howard attempted to scramble, but was stopped as time ran out to end the game. Lanning's decision to intentionally cause the penalty was an interesting way to take advantage of a wrinkle in the rule book. Having too many men on the field is a live-ball foul, meaning that more time won't be added to the clock when it's called. Oregon's choice to add an extra defender ensured that they wouldn't give up a big play that flipped the field. Howard was forced to look for freshman receiver Jeremiah Smith, who he was unable to find. https://thespun.com/college-football/dan-lanning-confirms-he-got-intentional-penalty-against-ohio-state Ohio State can complain all they want. That is the rule. Ohio State was lucky we did not put more points up on them. They were not the better team out on the field that night. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
MicroBurst61 No. 29 Share Posted October 15 On 10/15/2024 at 5:21 AM, OregonDucks said: I'm sure that the officials didn't want to call that offensive PI, in that situation, but it was so blatant that they had no choice. Something I think the young, freshman, phenom receiver Knew and tried to exploit but was just a little too....obvious...in his pushoff. Two months from now, three months from now, or again when we see him next year, he will NOT be as obvious, which in turn will make him that much more dangerous. If it had been Oregon driving for field goal range and Tez did the same move, I would be pissed, but NOT because of the call but because of the dumb-assed, obvious, pushoff from our wide receiver in a Critical moment of the game. Still a llooonngg season to go and now with even a Bigger Target on OBD's backs. Round One to Oregon. The vitrol building, from whatever sources that feed it, has the makings of creating a fierce, bitter, competitive rivalry between Mighty Oregon and tOSU. Two more rounds to go in twenty-twenty four?! YES PLEASE! Go Oregon Ducks! Own the B1G! 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Babyjesus615 No. 30 Share Posted October 15 (edited) The sheer amount of sleepless nights this will induce in opposing coaches who will now have to wonder what else Lanning and Co. can think up in each game is the real chess move. As if a coach already doesn't have enough on his plate as it pertains to X's and O's; he now has the knowledge in the back of his mind that our coach is not only great at learning on the job, but legitimately pushes himself and his staff to know more than you! Might as well start drawing up plans for the statue. Edited October 15 by Babyjesus615 2 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbmichaels No. 31 Share Posted October 15 NCAA mulling in-season action after Oregon's controversial late-game situational move helped Ducks beat Ohio State WWW.YAHOO.COM The NCAA Football Playing Rules Committee is actively “engaged” in examining Oregon's controversial play for possible action. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
mikethehiker No. 32 Share Posted October 15 Ohio St. fans are up in arms and now there are reports of a potential rules change as if there is no down side or gamble when it comes to deploying this strategy. Like an offsides penalty, it is essentially a free play for the offense. And if the play were to extend long enough to expire the clock, the offense would get an additional untimed down with a full play clock, regardless of their timeout situation. It's a gamble either way. This was coming out of a timeout situation, but imagine this scenario in a typical no-huddle, two-minute drill, where players and officials are running and scrambling. Substitutions are being made and you don't know whether the offense is trying to run a play or kill the clock. Then officials are supposed to determine if players are trying to get off or if they stay and participate, but by that time the play is already being run. Just leave the rule alone! It's not the first time it's been used. It just hurt the poor Buckeyes because they weren't smart enough. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh Author No. 33 Share Posted October 15 On 10/15/2024 at 9:51 AM, bbmichaels said: NCAA mulling in-season action after Oregon's controversial late-game situational move helped Ducks beat Ohio State WWW.YAHOO.COM The NCAA Football Playing Rules Committee is actively “engaged” in examining Oregon's controversial play for possible action. Only because Ohio State lost is this even being considered an issue. If Ohio State won and did what Lanning did it would just be called brilliant coaching and then maybe MAYBE discussed in the off season. Let the rule stand for this season... it may only come up a once or twice more this season and change it in the off season. Lanning played in the rules and used the rules to benefit him. It's call brilliant gamesmanship. Applaud him for it this season and change the rule for next season. 1 1 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Charles Fischer Administrator No. 34 Share Posted October 15 Let me see if I got this right...if a team purposes takes a delay-of-game penalty to get a better angle for a short field goal, or takes the same penalty to get more room to pin a short punt....it is normal and ethical? If the Ohio State team rushes to run another play before the replay booth can react, and they eventually get seven ill-begotten points....that is legal and ethically OK? But if Oregon uses the rules to benefit...it is WRONG, and an ethical dilemma? 1 1 1 4 2 1 Mr. FishDuck Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
spartan2785 No. 35 Share Posted October 15 (edited) On 10/15/2024 at 11:02 AM, Charles Fischer said: Let me see if I got this right...if a team purposes takes a delay-of-game penalty to get a better angle for a short field goal, or takes the same penalty to get more room to pin a short punt....it is normal and ethical? If the Ohio State team rushes to run another play before the replay booth can react, and they eventually get seven ill-begotten points....that is legal and ethically OK? But if Oregon uses the rules to benefit...it is WRONG, and an ethical dilemma? I get what you are saying, I don't have really strong opinions on the subject, but I do think it's a tiny bit bush to do this. I don't know, it might be that I just haven't seen this type of penalty intentionally done, so I might be reacting to it differently from others. I certainly don't think it's some travesty of justice. I think the difference is that with a delay of game I believe you can decline the penalty (correct?). With this it's about taking time off. The rushing up to call of play puts the blame on the officials not the team. Ohio St. messed up already by not understanding the rules on the previous P.I call. It's certainly a rule that needs correcting, as I'm sure we'll see this again at some point. Edited October 15 by spartan2785 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
bbmichaels No. 36 Share Posted October 15 On 10/15/2024 at 11:13 AM, spartan2785 said: I don't have really strong opinions on the subject, but I do think it's a tiny bit bush to do this. I don't know, it might be that I just haven't seen this type of penalty intentionally done, so I might be reacting to it differently from others. Agreed, even though I know we're in the minority. To Charles' points: *Playing fast is playing fast - it's on the officials to keep up, or on the other team to call the timeout to get it reviewed. *Delay of game penalties can be declined by the other team. Intentionally abusing the illegal substitution rule, IMO, is more in line with faking an injury to slow down a hurry-up offense. It's abusing some trust in the way the rules are written. Was it "brilliant gamesmanship" when Tosh told his Cal D-linemen to flop on the ball to slow down Chip's offense? Maybe. But is the game better or worse for that type of tactic? I don't lose any respect for Dan/Tosh based on that one play, but I would rather not see it. I don't personally feel that the game is better when played that way. And I'm not surprised that the NCAA is considering addressing it. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Solar No. 37 Share Posted October 15 The 4 seconds lost were the difference between OSU having time to call the time out after the slide vs the game being over and it was 100% legal. Remember the Survivor series motto? "outplay, outwit, outlast" It's well known that our most elite military groups utilize every possible advantage in a tactical mission. If they would have known exactly when osama bin ladin was going to be taking a poop they would have adjusted their attack time. If it's legal, DL is looking to exploit it, and I'm all for it. I still think the UO sports science group needs to mix up a mouth rinse for our O-Line that creates the most pungent and repulsive breath, such that when they block down on you and breath in your face your natural instinct is to recoil away as fast as possible, such a stench that you can't think straight enough to defeat the block and tackle the ball carrier. 4 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
TexasDuck No. 38 Share Posted October 16 There is certainly a Belichick flavor to this, and I mean that in the best possible sense. 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haywarduck No. 39 Share Posted October 16 On 10/13/2024 at 7:36 AM, Haywarduck said: Two pictures, one is Mariø at the end of a game, the other Lanning! I might add Dan and Kelly, for those who recognize these characters. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Desert Duck No. 40 Share Posted October 16 On 10/15/2024 at 11:02 AM, Charles Fischer said: Let me see if I got this right...if a team purposes takes a delay-of-game penalty to get a better angle for a short field goal, or takes the same penalty to get more room to pin a short punt....it is normal and ethical? If the Ohio State team rushes to run another play before the replay booth can react, and they eventually get seven ill-begotten points....that is legal and ethically OK? But if Oregon uses the rules to benefit...it is WRONG, and an ethical dilemma? Nailed it! Thank you. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh Author No. 41 Share Posted October 16 On 10/15/2024 at 11:34 AM, bbmichaels said: Intentionally abusing the illegal substitution rule, IMO, is more in line with faking an injury to slow down a hurry-up offense. It's abusing some trust in the way the rules are written. I swear I've seen the 12 man in the field penalty work like an off sides penalty more often than not. The refs let the play go through and the offense chooses if they want to take the five yards or decline and take the bigger play. Offsides usually doesn't come with a whistle unless there is some significant presnap contact. 12 man on the field doesn't usually illicit a whistle. It got a whistle here because there were 10 seconds on the clock. I could be wrong but again... I want to say that 12 man on the field doesn't outright stop play. I'm fine if they want to change the rules in the office season but not during the season. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pocketchange No. 42 Share Posted October 16 I think people are overreacting to this for three reasons: 1.Any change to the rules will likely be exploited more than this. 2. How often is burning 4 seconds more valuable than limiting yardage? 3. It is a risky play This is certainly not any worse than committing a PI to prevent a touchdown or hurrying a play to prevent a replay Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
30Duck Moderator No. 43 Share Posted October 16 On 10/15/2024 at 7:17 PM, Pocketchange said: I think people are overreacting to this for three reasons: The 4th reason is because it was Oregon who did it. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steven A Moderator No. 44 Share Posted October 16 On 10/15/2024 at 7:17 PM, Pocketchange said: 3. It is a risky play Absolutely, can you imagine if instead of deflecting the ball on the play, there had been an interception. It would not have counted. 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh Author No. 45 Share Posted October 16 On 10/15/2024 at 7:17 PM, Pocketchange said: I think people are overreacting to this for three reasons: 1.Any change to the rules will likely be exploited more than this. 2. How often is burning 4 seconds more valuable than limiting yardage? 3. It is a risky play This is certainly not any worse than committing a PI to prevent a touchdown or hurrying a play to prevent a replay This is absolutely situational. It was only because Ohio State was outside of comfortable field goal range... it was possible the odds weren't great.. that trading five yards for 4-5 seconds is worth it. And it's only worth it because reasonably getting a decent yardage pass off in 5-6 seconds and then calling a time out for a long field goal is darn tricky. In the Ducks vs Them for this game (a different thread) you can hear Lanning say that they need 10 yards. So his math was give them 5 and burn some clock... Credit where credit is due because that Oregon coverage on that last play was solid because Howard had no where to throw the ball. He ran... which the Ducks were kinda fine with because running is slower than passing. 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Kamikaze Kid Moderator No. 46 Share Posted October 16 I don't understand the unsportsmanship angle some people have taken on this play. OBD willingly took a penalty because they thought the out come would benefit them. How is that any different from a corner back intentionally committing pass interference to avoid a touch down or intentionally taking a delay of game penalty near the goal line to give your kicker a better angle for a field goal. What about when a lineman intentionally holds a defender that's about to obliterate the quarterback? Bottom line, if it benefits your team and increases your odds of winning you should do it. I would never condone a cheap shot or intentionally injuring someone but mere strategic in game decisions seems to be fair game to me. 1 3 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
David Marsh Author No. 47 Share Posted October 16 Some validation finally!!!! Also Ari says that the refs missed an interception. 3 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllOregon No. 48 Share Posted October 16 (edited) I read this topic as I watched a basketball team intentionally commit fouls with 10 seconds left in the game to legally attempt to win a game. Which happens in many if not most close basketball games at all levels. I told my wife, “same thing.” Magically, she agrees. Edited October 16 by AllOregon 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AllOregon No. 49 Share Posted October 16 (edited) I actually thought maybe Lanning thought of this while watching hoops. The team that is ahead by 3 with few seconds left and fouls the other team to not let a 3 point shot occur. It is not without its risks, but… Pretty sure a buckeye coach did that once or twice… Edited October 16 by AllOregon Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
