Jami Jurich
Guest
In defense of Oregon’s extra defender trickery in their win over Ohio State
Jami Jurich via our friends at Land-Grant Holy Land
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
Photo by Ali Gradischer/Getty Images
Dan Lanning knew exactly what he was doing when he put a 12th defender on the field at the end of the OSU-Oregon game. It would behoove the Buckeyes to take note.
As the clock ticked toward zero in the Ohio State versus Oregon matchup last weekend, Oregon coach Dan Lanning took matters into his own hands, sending an illegal extra defender onto the field.
The move, which Lanning has since implied was a calculated one designed to run time off the clock, resulted in what is certainly the most advantageous penalty in my recollection.
As has been much discussed in the days since Saturday, having an illegal man on the field is a live-ball penalty, which means the Ducks handed Ohio State a measly five yards—negligible in these particular circumstances because they kept the Buckeyes out of field goal range—while draining four precious seconds off the clock. Seconds that could have negated that controversial second in Will Howard’s slide, for example. Seconds that could have constituted another play for Ohio State.
I’ve seen a lot of Buckeye fans griping about Lanning’s move, and I hear you. In the moment (and even after careful consideration, to an extent), Oregon’s move felt cheap. I absolutely hated being on the receiving end of that sort of trickery.
But I also have to respect the vision. Let’s be honest, if Ryan Day and his band of merry men did anything even remotely similar, the Buckeyes might have come away with a win—and, I think it’s safe to say, a fanbase who would brag about their coach’s ingenuity.
There’s a funny thing about loopholes: They tend to make people really angry, the way Buckeye fans felt after Lanning used one against us Saturday. But if you really examine the anger under a microscope, it’s laced with a twinge of jealousy. “I wish we’d thought of that.”
It’s low-risk, high-reward. In fact, the only way it could have potentially backfired would be if the refs had called unsportsmanlike conduct (a 15-yard penalty, plus any action the ref feels fair for it), for the intentionality of it, which would be nearly impossible to prove.
Do you know how many scenarios you have to run through, prepare for, and commit to memory to find yourself in a situation like the Ducks found themselves in? You don’t luck into that kind of good fortune, you set yourself up to receive it. Lanning demonstrated a preparedness for anything that would be impressive if it hadn’t been used against my team.
It requires such creativity too, because loopholes are so often closed quickly after they’re discovered. It’s the kind of thing you get one shot at. Lanning saw his moment, and he took it.
Lanning didn’t create this scenario out of thin air—there are instances of its use in the NFL prior to a rule change following the 2011 season, but he certainly drew attention to it at the collegiate level, and the window of opportunity is likely drawing to a close in the same way the NFL put the kibosh on it.
In fact, Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports reported today that the NCAA Rules Committee is considering in-season changes to the rule after Oregon exposed the loophole.
Though the rule can’t officially be changed until the offseason and we don’t have any specifics around exactly what that action would be, presumably, the idea would be to return the time to the game clock so defenses are discouraged from committing fouls to waste time.
But since Lanning didn’t break any existing rules in creating an intentional foul (other than the rule he broke on purpose, that is), I’m going to give the guy his flowers on this one. The Buckeyes couldn’t even manage the clock the way it’s intended to be managed, and Lanning is getting crafty with the rulebook? You have to hand it to the guy, it was a brilliant strategy and much to my dismay, the maneuver paid off for the Ducks.
These opportunities don’t present themselves in every single game, but if you come prepared, you can usually find a clever way to get yourself to the end result you want. The Buckeyes should take a page out of Lanning’s playbook—not literally, because this particular maneuver isn’t long for this world, it seems—but in the sense that they need to find ways to take ownership over their destiny in high-stakes games like this one, or they’re going to continue to get owned when it counts.
Continue reading...
Jami Jurich via our friends at Land-Grant Holy Land
Visit their fantastic blog and read the full article (and so much more) here
Photo by Ali Gradischer/Getty Images
Dan Lanning knew exactly what he was doing when he put a 12th defender on the field at the end of the OSU-Oregon game. It would behoove the Buckeyes to take note.
As the clock ticked toward zero in the Ohio State versus Oregon matchup last weekend, Oregon coach Dan Lanning took matters into his own hands, sending an illegal extra defender onto the field.
The move, which Lanning has since implied was a calculated one designed to run time off the clock, resulted in what is certainly the most advantageous penalty in my recollection.
As has been much discussed in the days since Saturday, having an illegal man on the field is a live-ball penalty, which means the Ducks handed Ohio State a measly five yards—negligible in these particular circumstances because they kept the Buckeyes out of field goal range—while draining four precious seconds off the clock. Seconds that could have negated that controversial second in Will Howard’s slide, for example. Seconds that could have constituted another play for Ohio State.
I’ve seen a lot of Buckeye fans griping about Lanning’s move, and I hear you. In the moment (and even after careful consideration, to an extent), Oregon’s move felt cheap. I absolutely hated being on the receiving end of that sort of trickery.
But I also have to respect the vision. Let’s be honest, if Ryan Day and his band of merry men did anything even remotely similar, the Buckeyes might have come away with a win—and, I think it’s safe to say, a fanbase who would brag about their coach’s ingenuity.
There’s a funny thing about loopholes: They tend to make people really angry, the way Buckeye fans felt after Lanning used one against us Saturday. But if you really examine the anger under a microscope, it’s laced with a twinge of jealousy. “I wish we’d thought of that.”
It’s low-risk, high-reward. In fact, the only way it could have potentially backfired would be if the refs had called unsportsmanlike conduct (a 15-yard penalty, plus any action the ref feels fair for it), for the intentionality of it, which would be nearly impossible to prove.
Do you know how many scenarios you have to run through, prepare for, and commit to memory to find yourself in a situation like the Ducks found themselves in? You don’t luck into that kind of good fortune, you set yourself up to receive it. Lanning demonstrated a preparedness for anything that would be impressive if it hadn’t been used against my team.
It requires such creativity too, because loopholes are so often closed quickly after they’re discovered. It’s the kind of thing you get one shot at. Lanning saw his moment, and he took it.
Lanning didn’t create this scenario out of thin air—there are instances of its use in the NFL prior to a rule change following the 2011 season, but he certainly drew attention to it at the collegiate level, and the window of opportunity is likely drawing to a close in the same way the NFL put the kibosh on it.
In fact, Ross Dellenger of Yahoo Sports reported today that the NCAA Rules Committee is considering in-season changes to the rule after Oregon exposed the loophole.
Though the rule can’t officially be changed until the offseason and we don’t have any specifics around exactly what that action would be, presumably, the idea would be to return the time to the game clock so defenses are discouraged from committing fouls to waste time.
But since Lanning didn’t break any existing rules in creating an intentional foul (other than the rule he broke on purpose, that is), I’m going to give the guy his flowers on this one. The Buckeyes couldn’t even manage the clock the way it’s intended to be managed, and Lanning is getting crafty with the rulebook? You have to hand it to the guy, it was a brilliant strategy and much to my dismay, the maneuver paid off for the Ducks.
These opportunities don’t present themselves in every single game, but if you come prepared, you can usually find a clever way to get yourself to the end result you want. The Buckeyes should take a page out of Lanning’s playbook—not literally, because this particular maneuver isn’t long for this world, it seems—but in the sense that they need to find ways to take ownership over their destiny in high-stakes games like this one, or they’re going to continue to get owned when it counts.
Continue reading...