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

Nov 14, 2024
3:35:49pm

momowagon Intervention Needed

It has to be an unfair act affecting play. Run of the mill Unsportsmanlike (i.e. insane person on the field away from the ball shouting at the ref) would not negate the TD.

Report problem with this ad

momowagon

Bio page: momowagon
Joined: Dec 9, 2014
Last login: Nov 14, 2024
Total posts: 2,348 (5 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

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

Report problem with this ad

Posting on CougarBoard

In order to post, you will need to either sign up or log in.

Report problem with this ad