How do you define "involved" in the play? Was Harlan not involved?

Report problem with this ad

Nov 14, 2024
12:47:00pm

LegitCoug All-American

You could argue that he affected the play by just being on the field.

Report problem with this ad

LegitCoug

Bio page: LegitCoug
Joined: Mar 2, 2011
Last login: Nov 14, 2024
Total posts: 4,279 (24 FO)

Report problem with this ad

Messages

Author

Time

Here's why the Unsportsmanlike penalty on Harlan would not have negated a TD:

momowagon

12:39pm

I don't think that's true if you are on the field of play. Are you saying if a

cougarfann888

12:41pm

If the coach tackled a defender, that would be affecting the play and it would

SoCalCoug

12:43pm

What is the definition of "affecting the play"?

SUAVO

12:47pm

Judgement call by the ref. This ref called it as unsportsmanlike.

momowagon

12:47pm

That's my paraphrase of the principle. I'm not sure what the exact wording is,

SoCalCoug

12:48pm

In the case of a tackle I think the ref calls a penalty for too many men which

jre85

3:01pm

Hopefully the ref wouldn't call that as unsportsmanlike. That would be another

momowagon

12:45pm

Away from the play? The keep-away play was all over the field.

Les IsMore

2:44pm

Is that the NCAA rules? It's not a TD in college

stansburycoug

12:42pm

Wasn't there a Steelers coach who tripped a player from the sideline a few years ago?

Skeptical Optimist

12:45pm

There are several different application to dead ball in college

stansburycoug

12:49pm

Tomlin was in the way on the sideline, but didn't touch him

steelerguy99

12:52pm

THis lines up with the rule. The RB in this example is not a non-player. Harlan

momowagon

12:47pm

Harlan and Whit should have been out blocking and impeding would be tacklers ?

stansburycoug

12:50pm

That would have been a different penalty than "Unsportsmanlike conduct".

momowagon

12:53pm

? what penalty would that be? I've reffed up to HS, I'm curious what it is?

stansburycoug

12:55pm

I think the problem here is we've seen the application on defense

stansburycoug

1:06pm

Are you sure he is a non player?

dratax

7:45pm

What if he was out there blocking? That doesn't make sense.

GfB

12:42pm

But it does. If he blocked a player involved in the play, that would negate the

SoCalCoug

12:44pm

Well in that case his mere physical presence on the field affects that play. Even as just a distraction.

GfB

12:46pm

That is not the rule.

SoCalCoug

12:46pm

It would be a different penalty than just "Unsportsmanlike Conduct"

SoCalCoug

12:47pm

Wait, Unfair acts are still called as "Unsportsmanlike Conduct"

Zoobieman

3:09pm

This is correct. There is no “Unfair Acts” penalty. The penalty is still called

RalphWiggam

3:17pm

You would agree that if Harlan didn't interfere with play, that would not negate

momowagon

3:37pm

You would agree that running onto the field and yelling at the refs during play is interfering with the play, right?

Skeptical Optimist

3:44pm

Not if the runner isn't near players or the ball.

momowagon

4:13pm

The refs are part of the play. If he interferes with the ref, by definition he's interfering with the play.

Skeptical Optimist

4:25pm

Nope, by rule it has to be "interfering with the ball or a player while the ball

momowagon

4:31pm

Skeptical, The rulebook gives a specific example backing Momowagon

Zoobieman

4:38pm

I stand corrected, but my main point still remains. If the Utes had managed to score

Skeptical Optimist

4:44pm

How would they justify it? Being on the field is only interfering with the play

momowagon

5:03pm

But he can't use that leeway unless he determines that play was interfered with.

momowagon

3:35pm

The Verbiage "Unsportmanlike Conduct" is still used for Unfair acts

Zoobieman

4:34pm

Sure, but the penalties for those are different. Negating the TD would require

momowagon

4:37pm

I was responding to the wrong post. . . my mistake.

Zoobieman

4:46pm

I would bet if they are calling one with a penalty different than

momowagon

5:00pm

How do you define "involved" in the play? Was Harlan not involved?

LegitCoug

12:47pm

You could argue that, but you would lose.

SoCalCoug

12:47pm

Huh. Well, kind of a fun thought experiment anyway.

LegitCoug

12:48pm

The Ref who made the call said unsportsmanlike conduct, not something else.

momowagon

12:49pm

Wrong. There is no “unfair act” penalty. The penalty for Unfair Act is

RalphWiggam

3:18pm

Unfair Act is a type of Unsportsmanlike penalty. if it's not called as an unfair

momowagon

3:38pm

Yes. And when there is an unfair act the penalty is “unsportsmanlike conduct.”

RalphWiggam

6:39pm

The ref can't negate the TD unless it's the unfair act type. If they want to

momowagon

6:47pm

They would simply call unsportsmanlike conduct. Period.

RalphWiggam

7:08pm

Interesting. If that's the case...

LegitCoug

12:44pm

Well I would expect penalties outside of the game for that, IE lifetime bans for

Stopper6700

12:46pm

Because if they interrupt the play that's a different penalty. The ref called

momowagon

12:50pm

That would have been the most Utah way to win

Skeptical Optimist

12:44pm

Taken to an extreme, what if a bunch of students ran onto the field and tackled BYU players to allow a TD by Utah.

KingDave

12:44pm

That would result in negating the play.

SoCalCoug

12:45pm

Yes, because it would be something other than unsportsmanlike.

momowagon

12:51pm

I don't know about that. Do you remember when Utah fans rushed the field during

cougarfan84

12:46pm

That wasn't called as "unsportsmanlike." It was sideline interference. If Harlan

momowagon

12:52pm

I wonder if Utah had managed to return it for a TD if the refs would have changed it to a live ball

Skeptical Optimist

1:29pm

I think this is very possible. Harlan was in the middle of several players

NYC and Japan

1:40pm

I can just see the refs huddling and saying "If we say it's unsportsmanlike conduct, the

Skeptical Optimist

2:04pm

When you are being very publicly, verbally harassed by the AD, easy choice

NYC and Japan

3:05pm

So what prevents non-players from disrupting the game?

HuskerFan2

12:46pm

That would be a different penalty, not Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

momowagon

12:54pm

This makes perfect sense. How many times does momowagon have to repeat it?

AT Cougar

1:18pm

If your on the field you would be considered a player in my opinion.

maYbe

12:52pm

Nice opinion! That's not what the rules say.

momowagon

12:55pm

The rule doesn't define a player.

maYbe

12:56pm

Need a rules expert to weigh in here. An administrator five yards into the field

RalphWiggam

12:53pm

The Ref must have concluded that Harlan didn't effect the play, or he would have

momowagon

12:56pm

You keep saying that but do you know what other options he had? If you don't

coug10278

12:57pm

I think it would be an "Unfair Act" which is:

momowagon

1:11pm

You continue to misinterpret the rule and the penalty. There is no penalty for

RalphWiggam

3:15pm

You're confusing the call with the penalty. A ref would have to determine that

momowagon

3:40pm

I think there likely would have been something else called had Utah scored

goidcougs

1:15pm

The refs have the authority in the rule book to determine for themselves if an

Ghost of Peanut

1:01pm

Chat GPT for the win:

MotorCityCoug

1:24pm

Unfortunately a BYU player didn’t light him up. Thus creating “interference”.

DiamondMo

1:17pm

Oof, we totally stole that game

Brandoblueblood

1:24pm

This seems like an Oregon-esque loophole that could be exploited if true

Brandoblueblood

1:22pm

Man, I wish a BYU player would have ran into him accidently.

TRUE_BLUE_COUGY

1:32pm

Then we might see fans or other non players storm the field on a play like that.

SoValleyCOUG

2:01pm

Please see the dozen explanations above that refute this.

BlooGeek

2:27pm

Devils advocate… did they change it to unsportsmanlike after? Wouldn’t it have

1984coug

2:20pm

Unsportsmanlike is the correct call if Harlan doesn't interfere with the play.

momowagon

2:38pm

It would be easy for the refs to say that somebody coming onto the field to yell at them during the play

Skeptical Optimist

2:43pm

It is still the correct call even if he does interfere with the play. Because

RalphWiggam

3:30pm

No, it would be Unsportsmalike with the unfair acts modifier. You can't negate

momowagon

3:44pm

Probably wrong . . . Read one section further for "Unfair Acts"

Zoobieman

2:42pm

I already posted this above. If it's called as an unfair act the Ref can amend

momowagon

2:55pm

Fair enough - Unfair acts are called as "Unsportmanlike conduct"

Zoobieman

3:06pm

When they fumbled and we recovered, it didn't matter what penalty they called

Skeptical Optimist

3:10pm

So the entire Ute waterboy and photo journalist sideline could run on and block?

Dr MoBYU

3:27pm

This thread is a great example of a trap a lot of lawyers fall into all

SoCalCoug

3:48pm

Thanks Matlock!

momowagon

3:58pm

Utah always trying to find loopholes in the rules.

Boring

3:57pm

Doesn’t matter and who cares

Carnac

4:12pm

RE: Doesn’t matter and who cares

momowagon

4:32pm

This doesn't seem to square with any other event in football. Here, the KR team is the offense, and the KO team is the

Bob Vance

5:28pm

1. The rules treat a non-player committing a foul during play the same as

momowagon

5:42pm

No, because Holmoe represents the defense in that case. Defensive penalties almost never result in stoppage.

Bob Vance

5:45pm

And Utah would decline it obviously.

RGGeemer

7:58pm

Not what they did in 2012.

RGGeemer

7:57pm

Yes they did. Penalty was enforced on the end of the play.

momowagon

8:04pm

I can guarantee you 100% that those refs would have not let a TD stand.

dallasbyu

6:20pm

They absolutely would have because they had stuck to the letter of the law

momowagon

6:27pm

Then why did we get to kick another FG in 2012?

RGGeemer

6:56pm

That is a good example that proves my point. We got an untimed down 15 yards

momowagon

7:11pm

But it was 4th down. Utah football. Unless it was a live ball foul. Which is

RGGeemer

7:53pm

Link

Posting on CougarBoard