regarding end of Colorado game...

**UofICy** · 11-11-2007, 10:51 AM

Now you are the one making a judgement call as to what is fair and what is not fair. Your comparing letting the play clock run down with this instance is laughable. There is no penalty associated with letting the play clock run down. However, hiking the ball before the game officails have deemed it "ready for play" is a penalty. And had the Center not done that the game would have just ended. Therefore he took the penalty to give them the only chance his team had. That by the "written rule in the NCAA footbal handboook" is a blatant example of unfairly conserving time. Admit it, you are totally wrong on this issue.

**ISUFan22** · 11-11-2007, 11:01 AM

Looked like the right call to me...but regardless...I've already let it go and am celebrating the win.

Maybe you should try doing the same, rather than marring a win by arguing with your own fans.

**guitarchitect7** · 11-11-2007, 11:05 AM

Originally Posted by UofICy

Now you are the one making a judgement call as to what is fair and what is not fair. Your comparing letting the play clock run down with this instance is laughable. There is no penalty associated with letting the play clock run down. However, hiking the ball before the game officails have deemed it "ready for play" is a penalty. And had the Center not done that the game would have just ended. Therefore he took the penalty to give them the only chance his team had. That by the "written rule in the NCAA footbal handboook" is a blatant example of unfairly conserving time. Admit it, you are totally wrong on this issue.

Dude, apparently you are the one who doesn't get it. I am not making a judgement call. Point out in anything I have said what is judgemental. I have stated that the quote itself is judgemental. When something is not clearly defined like a holding call, or a pass interference, and makes the referees have to define what is considered running down the clock or conserving time is too vague of a rule because this definition can change from one game to the next with no guidlines on what is correct (hence having this conversation with you).

Secondly, my pointing out an example of a play that is running down the clock fits your definition that you gave as something the refs have to judge to define as a penalty or not. That is not being judgemental, just pointing out a prime example that is purely the sheer opposite of what your pointing out. Why couldn't a ref tag a team with the same kind of penalty by stopping the clock when clearly the team is making no effort to get a play in. Its the same thing as what you want by having the ref continue the clock because the team is making every effort to stop the clock when it doesn't usually fit within the context of the game.

Now, I only agrue this point because its more irritating to see indivuals be judgemental in how a call should have gone instead of looking at all the angles on how it could have gone. I am not going about this as trying to right. I could care less and would rather be wrong, but the rules are not clear on this situation at all (hence the controversy surronding the play).

So either we can keep going on this and you could keep telling me that I'm wrong and play me out as some idiot, or we could agree to disagree like I also stated before and move on. Your choice!

**UofICy** · 11-11-2007, 11:14 AM

I'm done. Your reading comprehension is poor, at best.

**bellzisu** · 11-11-2007, 11:25 AM

Guys we won... I don't know why we are argueing against a rule that would of saved our butts in this game. Instead of relying on the clock running out before the second kick.

Guitar you have to let go. UofICy gave the rule and I can see where he is coming from. Then again I can see where you are coming from. A win is a win. Why agrue about something like this.

I suggest drinking six beers watching some NFL then getting back to this later if it still matters.

**ajk4st8** · 11-11-2007, 11:42 AM

I dont understand all the confusion about this rule.

Its pretty clear. There is no explanation that CU could possibly put together that gave them any chance.

**UofICy** · 11-11-2007, 12:08 PM

Originally Posted by ajk4st8

I dont understand all the confusion about this rule.

Its pretty clear. There is no explanation that CU could possibly put together that gave them any chance.

Yet, you PM me with Neg rep. Nice.

**jahfg** · 11-11-2007, 12:17 PM

Originally Posted by guitarchitect7

First off, that quote is unfair. You are making refs make a judgement call on what is allowed within a game. Where is the crossing line of what is fair versus unfair. That quote is to vague and needs revised.

Secondly, when a team lets the play clock wind down to take time off of the game clock, isn't that unfair. I mean they havn't even huddled to call in a play, they are just standing their waiting.

The point I'm trying to make is this, there are many tactics with football that could be classified as unfair, and some don't even have penalties attached to them. This one does, but its within the rules of the game thus not making it unfair just like the rest of them.

Are you serious? I'm sorry but you are clearly wrong. How can you possibly argue this with a straight face?

**UofICy** · 11-11-2007, 12:21 PM

Watch out! The "Neg. Rep Nazi" will surely attack you now.

**CyGal** · 11-11-2007, 12:25 PM

Hey guys, let's all remember the win and celebrate that, instead of fighting over rules that may/may not have changed the outcome of the game.

**ISUFan22** · 11-11-2007, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by CyGal

Hey guys, let's all remember the win and celebrate that, instead of fighting over rules that may/may not have changed the outcome of the game.

**guitarchitect7** · 11-11-2007, 12:35 PM

Originally Posted by jahfg

Are you serious? I'm sorry but you are clearly wrong. How can you possibly argue this with a straight face?

Yes I am serious!

Okay, explain me the difference then since I am so dumb founded to see it.

You have one circumstance that are a bunch of players standing around clearly not going to call a play and just waisting time off the clock to end the game/quarter, or to run time of the clock.

You now have another situation that has a team trying to hurry up and actually stop the clock and purposely creates a penalty to do it.

Both are situations of controlling the clock that is unfair to the opposing team thus should both inflict a penalty within the context of the quote that was cited.

Clearly the NFL saw the same problem with this just like UofICy was pointing out and made a rule of a 10 sec run off to prevent this from happening. The NCAA has not yet made that rule and thus the situation was legal within the rules of the game. The rule that was quoted is too vague to be clear on which situation is needs to be applied to. That was the only agruement I was making from the beginning.

**jahfg** · 11-11-2007, 12:37 PM

Running the play clock down is within the rules. Snapping the ball before it is set to play isn't.

**guitarchitect7** · 11-11-2007, 12:40 PM

Originally Posted by jahfg

Running the play clock down is within the rules. Snapping the ball before it is set to play isn't.

Exactly! You said it right there. That's why there was five yard penalty, but not letting the clock continue. Thats why the quote rule is too vague!

I personally agree with what the rule is trying to accomplish, and if reword and made more clearly, should have been applied to the second to last play by letting the clock continue and not letting them get a second attempt.