Don't expect to see that Fake FG play again

"Losers are the people who never had the balls to cheat." - kenny Powers
 
gth816f said:
Haha. I actually do not like that play at all :p. But I don't think that should be made into a rule, however cheap it is. However, when you have players streaming onto and off the field, I think that is a situation which warrants special attention. To me this rule is very similar to the rule about not being able to break the huddle with 12 men; the defense should not be put into a position where they are confused as to which 11 men are going to be on the field.
Click to expand...

Consider your point made with me sir. However, I still reserve the right to wear the homer shades on this issue. :) It was a fantastic play.
 
I think it works in our defense that even though Thomas walked to the sidelines are with the offense he went right to the line of scrimmage from there and assumed the position of a WR about to go for a route, not a guy pretending he isn't on the field.
 
I'm not a fan of the wording of the rule; seems too general and shifts the responsibility of "keep track of all eleven players" away from the other team. On the other hand, it's such an obscure rule as well. It's obvious that neither coaches knew it was against the rules and apparently the referees didn't really know either.

Anyway, I've seen worse calls or non-calls that lead to a score. Moving on.
 
...and Jasper Sanks was down before he fumbled a few years back, and Colorado got a phantom 5th down on 1990-GET OVER IT! its done and over with!!!
 
GTLiebs said:
I think it works in our defense that even though Thomas walked to the sidelines are with the offense he went right to the line of scrimmage from there and assumed the position of a WR about to go for a route, not a guy pretending he isn't on the field.
Click to expand...

I'll bet the Thomas even checked with the ref to make sure he was lined up correctly to make sure he was an eligible reciever.
 
Trick plays just aren't part of the game of football. Neither are snap counts. There's no reason for a QB to have anything more complex than what's used in intramural flag football. Play action? Way too deceptive, if your receivers can't beat safeties without trickeration, then they should find another sport. Faking a handoff? Your QB has to handle all the pressure or it ain't football.

Seriously, it's a game, not the Geneva convention. I know many rules against trick plays were created for Heisman, such as tucking the ball under your shirt and I realize plays like that should be illegal. But we should always lean towards letting them play the game and make rules clearcut. I mean, could you imagine the mutiny if they called that play back?
 
floridajacket said:
Seriously, it's a game, not the Geneva convention. I know many rules against trick plays were created for Heisman, such as tucking the ball under your shirt and I realize plays like that should be illegal. But we should always lean towards letting them play the game and make rules clearcut. I mean, could you imagine the mutiny if they called that play back?
Click to expand...

What does running eleven players off in a mass substitution but leaving one of them on while substituting in ten at the same time in hopes of tricking the opponent into thinking eleven were coming in have to do with playing the game of football?
 
WracerX said:
I'll bet the Thomas even checked with the ref to make sure he was lined up correctly to make sure he was an eligible reciever.
Click to expand...

I heard a commentator say something to this effect. Basically, that the receiver could approach the referee and let him know that he was an eligible player. It then becomes hard for an official to call it a trick play when he was completely aware of what was happening prior to the snap. It forces him to formally accept the player's eligibilty before the play is run.
 
alpha said:
Dabo's whining now:
http://www.thestate.com/sports/story/944194.html
Click to expand...

This is just evidence that he's not ready for this job. You'd think that he wouldn't want to encourage his team to look backwards. A great coach in this situation would credit Tech for the win and move on. Furthermore, it's really, and I mean REALLY stupid to try and adjust the score of a game based on a bad call. Anybody with walking-around sense should realize that if our TD on the Blair pass had been called back, it would have altered the course of the game in several ways and there's no way to predict what outcome would have resulted.
 
GiveEmHellJackets said:
This is just evidence that he's not ready for this job. You'd think that he wouldn't want to encourage his team to look backwards. A great coach in this situation would credit Tech for the win and move on. Furthermore, it's really, and I mean REALLY stupid to try and adjust the score of a game based on a bad call. Anybody with walking-around sense should realize that if our TD on the Blair pass had been called back, it would have altered the course of the game in several ways and there's no way to predict what outcome would have resulted.
Click to expand...

I can't believe he actually said they should have won 24-23...wow...what a "coach."
 
gth816f said:
What does running eleven players off in a mass substitution but leaving one of them on while substituting in ten at the same time in hopes of tricking the opponent into thinking eleven were coming in have to do with playing the game of football?
Click to expand...

Well, I'm not sure what the "game of football" exactly is. Fake field goals, line shifts, statue of liberty plays all aim to deceive your opponent and score easy points. Football is not a true athletic contest, like the 100 m dash. It's a game of chess as well as an athletic event. Both teams have a set of rules and they try to score points within those rules however possible, no matter how sane the rules.

My point is, where do you draw the line against deception? Obviously there should be a line, but it needs a much more concrete rule than the current substitution rule. Calling based on that rule will always be capricious and will never yield predictable outcomes.
 
Rodzilla said:
I can't believe he actually said they should have won 24-23...wow...what a "coach."
Click to expand...

Prior to this I wanted Clemson to look good against BC on Saturday. Now, I want them to go down hard. It would be even better if they lost to Duke.
 
Rodzilla said:
I can't believe he actually said they should have won 24-23...wow...what a "coach."
Click to expand...
I didnt get that either if you take 7 points from both teams by recalling both TDs like suggested then we are still ahead.
 
GT_LUVER said:
I didnt get that either if you take 7 points from both teams by recalling both TDs like suggested then we are still ahead.
Click to expand...

D'oh Swinney is saying that their trick play only led to a FG whereas ours led to a TD. And he's also presuming to know what the outcome of the game would have been had either team's play been called back, which is really amazing.
 
bellyseries said:
According to NCAA rule 9-2-2-b: “No simulated replacements or substitutions may be used to confuse opponents. No tactic associated with substitutes or the substitution process may be used to confuse opponents.”

A strict constructionist would have to rule our play illegal, since our tactic did confuse our opponent. But the rule is bogus, since half the strategy of football is meant "to confuse the opponent."

(Anybody remember Army's "lonesome end" tactic from the late 50s?)
Click to expand...
But the remedy is supposed to be for the ref to hold up the play while the opponent has an opportunity to adjust for it. Not a flag as far as I can tell.
 
The ACC is wrong on this one. If we did not let them have a chance to change to a FG formation, that would have been illegal. It's not our fault that nobody including their coaches failed to count the number of players in formation. They had ample opportunity to move their own players in, they should have taken the time to count.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top