SB Nation User Blog: PeteHoliday

Article Claims 'Bama Ineligible for BCS Title

PeteHoliday — Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:11:30 -0000

Article Claims 'Bama Ineligible for BCS Title

Just to head this off at the pass, the wording on the bottom of the USA Today poll listings "The AFCA prohibits coaches from voting for schools on major NCAA probation." -- is somewhat sloppily worded. That's not the text of the rule, it's a short-hand explanation of a rule. The actual rule does not refer to probation, but to post-season bans.

Breaking: Clay Travis Still Hates Alabama

PeteHoliday — Thu, 10 Dec 2009 23:38:26 -0000

More photos » by Mark Almond - AP

Might Travis's protestations have more to do with a certain blocked kick than any real outrage over the university's decision to cancel classes?

Browse more photos »

This afternoon, Clay Travis penned a thousand-word epistle over at FanHouse on the travesty being wrought on the educational system of the United States -- and the reputation of the entire Southeast -- by a reprehensible and abhorrent decision made by the University of Alabama this week.

Mr. Travis -- who you may remember as the ultra-classy "journalist" who used SEC Media Days as an opportunity to question Tim Tebow about his sex life -- is, apparently, incensed that classes will not be held from January 6-8 at The Capstone on account of the BCS National Championship Game.

When I read the piece, I knew it warranted a response, but my mind was swimming. Should I point out the ridiculously flawed logic of linking the number of statewide degree-holders to three days of class at one of the state's many universities?

Should I marvel at the fact that, apparently, Mr. Travis believes that babies today come out of the womb not only capable of running, but of running a 40-yard dash in 4.4 seconds?

What of the assertion that, somehow, a degree from Vanderbilt is worth less because classes aren't being held for a couple of days in January at a university hundreds of miles away?

Should I point out the absolute lack of analysis as to the number of days of class at Alabama and how that compares to other schools and whether or not these three days amount to a hill of beans in all that? Or maybe the fact that these three days fall squarely in the middle of the add/drop period and, therefore, won't prevent anyone from modifying their schedule?

I could also discuss how Alabama's football graduation rate is one of the best in the SEC and if the football team can graduate at that rate despite missing some class for games, that it's probably not such a huge deal to other students, either. Or note that UT's football graduation rate is more than 14% lower and talk about that age-old adage of glass houses.

Maybe I should point out to Mr. Travis that his sainted alma mater doesn't start class until the 13th of January (more than a week after Alabama) and only finishes finals a few days ahead.

No. While the list of patently absurd claims, generalizations, and crimes against statistics goes on, I realized that I was really giving Travis's ranty screed far, far too much credit.

The bottom line, as it turns out, is that this has nothing to do with some sort of educational or moral imperative to have class on January 6th, 7th, or 8th. It's not about some "message" that the University is allegedly sending.

Not a single person is harmed by a school taking a few days off to celebrate the accomplishments of the football team. Or our former presidents. Or Martin Luther King. Or the pilgrims and Indians. Or Casimir Pulaski. Professors who feel wronged will simply assign work for the extra days off. Students are not being prohibited from studying on those days, they're simply being excused from classes so that they can celebrate something most students over the past two decades at Alabama haven't gotten a chance to see . . . it might as well be a blizzard.

Coming as a surprise to absolutely nobody, though, is that Mr. Travis doesn't have any relevant data. He doesn't have any solid arguments. All he has is a bunch of outrage over . . . some slight modifications to an academic calendar.

Really, Clay, cry us a river already.

His article is a perfect example of a blogger with a bias, a bullhorn, and a soapbox to shout from who simply cannot stand the fact that a school he hates will be playing for a BCS title.

It's an object lesson in class warfare. He can't stand the fact that some trust-fund babies are going to get an all-expense paid trip to a far-off and glamorous destination and get to party for an extended weekend on their parent's dime.

It's a classic illustration of a self-loathing southerner looking for any excuse to help tear down an entire region of the country in the name of defending it.

We're not talking about some earth-shattering, ground-breaking administrative decision here. It's half a week of classes out of 4 years of schooling, given during a time of the year when classes and schedules are still being formed and a healthy number of other universities still have yet to return to class after winter break.

It's not a referendum on education vs. athletics. It's not a prohibition on learning. It's not a scaling back of the academic goals of the students, professors, or university at large. It's just a school he hates celebrating success he wishes they didn't have.

And his article is just another delusional, ignorant fan, blinded by rivalry, attempting to make a mountain out of a molehill.

Or, as we would say in Alabama: goin' off half cocked and squealin' like a stuck pig.

'Bama Dominates AP All-SEC Team

PeteHoliday — Mon, 07 Dec 2009 21:20:07 -0000

'Bama Dominates AP All-SEC Team

Saban got Coach of the Year honors while McClain and Ingram got Offensive and Defensive Player of the Year honors, respectively. Javier Arenas was selected on the first and second team in different positions (DB and all-purpose, respectively).

Tiffin, Johnson, Barron and Cody also made the first team. Carpenter and Peek found themselves on the second team. That brings the total number All SEC spots awarded to Alabama to 10, tying Florida (we had one more first team, they had one more second team). Only one other squad (Georgia) had more than 5 total selections.

Also, for those scoring at home, The Best Tailback In The State was awarded a spot on the second team, while Mark Ingram was a unanimous first-team selection.

Whining about Running Up The Score

PeteHoliday — Mon, 30 Nov 2009 00:16:43 -0000

Not 'Bama related (at least directly), but it is college football and it's been annoying me to no end today.

Last night in the USC/UCLA game the Trojans were up by 2 touchdowns with about a minute to go and they had the ball. Pete Carroll had Barkley line up in the victory formation and take a knee.

UCLA called a timeout.

On the next play, USC ran a play-action pass and scored on a 48 yard bomb to a wide-open man.

Today, UCLA blogs (and others who don't like Pete Carroll) are all up in arms and whining about Carroll running up the score. Like this from our SB Nation colleagues at Bruins Nation:

Not surprisingly Chetey Petey being the hypocritical, SCumbag that he is poured it on when the game was already decided with a long bomb to the endzone

Now, if we're talking about some rent-a-win cupcake from Division I-AA, sure. Don't run up the score. That's just tacky. But, at least the last time I checked, UCLA was a team in a BCS conference. If you don't want a conference rival to run up the score, stop them.

Even more importantly, though, if you think the game is over and you're just playing out the time remaining, don't do things to prolong the game. If you've already conceded defeat, don't act like you want to keep playing.

That means (for example) that you should not have your corners isolated in bump-and-run coverage when they're not fast enough to keep up with the WR, more or less begging for a deep ball. (Like Auburn did in the Iron Bowl last year)

It also means that when the other team is trying to end the game, you shouldn't be calling timeouts.

Calling a timeout there is a way of saying "We want the ball back so we can try and win this thing." If you think that the game is close enough that you can win it with a minute left on the clock when you don't even have the ball, why shouldn't your opponent be trying to score? Especially when you're going to leave a guy open like USC's wide-out was.

If UCLA fans want to be mad at someone, it should be their head-coach.

Kiffin Dismisses Richardson and Edwards

PeteHoliday — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:53:40 -0000

Kiffin Dismisses Richardson and Edwards

Definitely the right move, although I am certainly a little surprised that Kiffin hasn't found a way to screw this up yet.

Did Arenas Signal for a Fair Catch?

PeteHoliday — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 02:04:47 -0000

View full size photo »

With under two minutes left in the half, Alabama downed a P.J. Fitzgerald punt at the Mississippi State 1-yard-line and then held the Bulldogs to a three-and-out, hoping to set themselves up for a quick score before half-time.

The Heath Hutchins punt didn't quite make it to return man Javier Arenas, who attempted to keep the return team away from it by waving them off. A fortunate bounce landed right in his arms and he took off -- only to have the flags fly in, the whistles blow, and the Tide be assessed a 5 yard penalty for attempting to return a ball after a fair catch signal.

'Bama fans, and even Eli Gold, were understandably confused, since even on the replay it did not appear that Arenas called for a fair catch. At halftime, Gold conferred with the officials who told him that a rule change for 2010 allows any motion by the return man to suffice for a fair catch signal.

This isn't entirely true -- it doesn't seem that this rule has changed at all from 2009 -- but it appears that the refs made an arguably correct call on the play.

NCAA football rules 2-7-2 and 2-7-3 define a valid and invalid fair-catch signal. They read as follows:

Valid Signal
ARTICLE 2. A valid signal is a signal given by a player of Team B who has obviously signaled his intention by extending one hand only clearly above his head and waving that hand from side to side of his body more than once.

Invalid Signal
ARTICLE 3. An invalid signal is any waving signal by a player of Team B that does not meet the requirements of a valid signal (Rule 6-5-3).

So, as we can see, one hand above the head waving back and forth signifies a fair catch. According to 2-7-3, however, any other waving signal is considered an "invalid signal."

Rule 6-5-2 defines the penalty for attempting to advance the ball after a fair catch signal (emphasis supplied):

No Advance
ARTICLE 2. No Team B player shall carry a caught or recovered ball more than two steps in any direction after a valid or invalid fair catch signal by any Team B player (A.R. 6-5-2-I-IV).
PENALTY—Dead-ball foul. Five yards from the succeeding spot [S7 and S21].

The key to this rule is that an invalid fair catch signal works exactly the same way as a valid one for the return man, the primary difference (for everyone else) being that making an invalid signal provides less protection from getting hit after the catch.

The first thing to understand about the construction of this rule is that it serves a very important purpose: to keep return teams from employing trickery (fake fair-catch signals) to gain an unfair advantage on the return. Expecting players on coverage teams to be able to distinguish from a barely correct and a barely incorrect fair catch signal is a recipe for disaster, so anything that even slightly resembles a fair catch signal is going to be treated like one (valid or invalid).

If you're suspicious that the scenario that played out against MSU might not be a situation that the rule authors had contemplated, consider approved interpretation 6-5-VI:

Team A’s scrimmage kick is rolling beyond the neutral zone when B17 alerts his teammates to stay away from the ball by a "get away" signal at his waist or below. RULING: Invalid signal. The ball is dead by rule when either team recovers.

So from the above, it's pretty clear that the officials were easily within the letter of the law on the Arenas call but, if you're anything like me, your first reaction is something like: "Baloney, return guys wave their teammates away from kicks all the time and they're not flagged." After spending some time this afternoon thinking about it, I came up with two possible explanations for this apparent discrepancy that might suffice for an answer:

For starters, we're definitely talking about a judgment call made by the official as to how close what Arenas did was to a valid fair catch signal. The official thought it was close enough to be confusing, and thus considered it an invalid fair catch signal.This is an issue, though, because it seems to conflict with everything we think we know about how fair catches work, and it could leave an awful lot of confusing standards for return teams to try to keep up with.

The other option I've come up with was that the primary deficiency with Arenas' signal was the fact that he made it with only one hand. In order to be valid, a fair catch signal must be a) above the head, b) one hand only , and c) waved more than once. You can bet that any waving motion above the head is going to be considered a fair catch signal. Arenas, as you can see from the image above, was waving his hand at chest level, waved only one hand, and did it multiple times. Which puts him about 45 degrees of inclination from a valid fair catch signal . . . which is pretty close.

My guess (and this is purely speculation on my part) is that if Arenas waved both hands -- maybe like an "incomplete pass" officiating signal or even waving them in a direction like a "wide left" signal -- he would have avoided the appearance that he was making an invalid fair catch signal and might have been allowed to return the ball.

So it appears that the officiating crew made the correct call on Saturday night, but it was still a frustrating situation and I wouldn't be at all surprised if this is something that the coaching staff covers in some detail with the special teams unit this week in practice.

Best Halloween costume ever. (Passed along to me by a friend of mine who got it from a friend of...

PeteHoliday — Tue, 03 Nov 2009 22:51:17 -0000

Best Halloween costume ever. (Passed along to me by a friend of mine who got it from a friend of hers, etc.)

After spending a few hours last night poking around the NCAA football rule book, I see what...

PeteHoliday — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 15:15:41 -0000

After spending a few hours last night poking around the NCAA football rule book, I see what bobo_the_vol was trying to say, and I now agree with him. My initial interpretations of a few different clauses in the rule book were incorrect. Upon further reading, Rule 4-3-h means exactly what I said it did not mean (oops). The rule that I was leaning on to provide that interpretation, after another few reads through, doesn't support my assertion as I thought it did. As a result, the initial post was incorrect: the ball was not dead before Julio fell on it. As far as this particular play is concerned, it's a distinction with no difference as the ball was never bobbled around and there wasn't a Tennessee player anywhere in the vicinity of it when Julio touched it, so the final conclusion of this post is still valid. Regardless, I regret the error and appreciate bobo_the_vol taking the time to educate my stubborn self .

My SBNation signature isn't "I'm wrong all the time" for no reason. I screwed up a rule interpretation in yesterday's post on the Cody penalty. Primary credit goes to bobo_the_vol who was, I think, the first person to point out the error. Apologies for that -- I have earned and will accept your mocking and criticism in the comments below.

I was wrong (and thanks, bobo)

PeteHoliday — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 14:48:18 -0000

In a post yesterday at RollBamaRoll I tried to explain the basic fact that Terrence Cody taking off his helmet was a non-issue. While that point is still accurate, I did make a mistake in the initial interpretation which a couple of RTT folks caught and commented on. I initially defended the interpretation (both at RBR and in a few threads here at RTT). I did some more reading last night and realized that I was wrong and the original post went a bit too far (emphasis in original):

Update #2: After spending a few hours last night poking around the NCAA football rule book, I see what bobo_the_vol was trying to say, and I now agree with him. My initial interpretations of a few different clauses in the rule book were incorrect. Upon further reading, Rule 4-3-h means exactly what I said it did not mean (oops). The rule that I was leaning on to provide that interpretation, after another few reads through, doesn't support my assertion as I thought it did. As a result, the initial post was incorrect: the ball was not dead before Julio fell on it. As far as this particular play is concerned, it's a distinction with no difference as the ball was never bobbled around and there wasn't a Tennessee player anywhere in the vicinity of it when Julio touched it, so the final conclusion of this post is still valid. Regardless, I regret the error and appreciate bobo_the_vol taking the time to educate my stubborn self .

Not being one to like being wrong, this really irritates me, but I do appreciate bobo_the_vol, kidbourbon, and anyone else who came along and helped me figure out my error so that I could correct it. Many thanks for that.

I also apologize for being a little more stubborn than I probably should have been on the issue.

I guess this is the part where I invite you to mock me for being a stupid Bammer who can't read. Have at it, I've earned it.

Kicks, Penalties, and Possessions

PeteHoliday — Mon, 26 Oct 2009 17:41:36 -0000

More photos » by Dave Martin - AP

Tennesse coach Lane Kiffin, right, talks with quarterback Jonathan Crompton in the fourth quarter of their 12-10 loss to Alabama, presumably to ask him to explain, again, how this whole "fourth down" thing works. (AP Photo/Dave Martin)

Browse more photos »

After Cody's second block last night, when the announcers were yammering on about him taking his helmet off, I assumed that everyone who knew anything about football would recognize that taking one's helmet off is a foul like "excessive celebration:" no matter when it happens, it's the penalty enforced on the next. Play.

As it turns out, lots and lots of Tennessee fans don't really know the rules of football.

Neither does Lane Kiffin:

"If a play's still going, you can't take your helmet off," Kiffin said. "A guy throws his helmet as the ball's still live. He throws his helmet and then two of their guys go and recover the ball. It's a 15-yard penalty, and you kick again."

Now, it should come as no surprise that Kiffin has no idea what the rules are of the game he's coaching. It's not the first time.

But, seeing all of these people come out of the woodwork to talk about "re-kicks" and other silly things has frustrated me to no end. Allow me to explain how football works, not for the benefit of our readers, most of whom have been on top of this all from the very moment of the block, but for other fans who might need a refresher:

The Helmet Rule

First, understand that removing your helmet while on the field of play is expressly against the rules. Rule 9-2-1:

Unsportsmanlike Acts
ARTICLE 1. There shall be no unsportsmanlike conduct or any act that interferes with orderly game administration on the part of players, substitutes, coaches, authorized attendants or any other persons subject to the rules, before the game, during the game or between periods. a. Specifically prohibited acts and conduct include: 1. No player, substitute, coach or other person subject to the rules shall use abusive, threatening or obscene language or gestures, or engage in such acts that provoke ill will or are demeaning to an opponent, to game officials or to the image of the game, including but not limited to:

. . .

(f) Removal of a player’s helmet before he is in the team area (Exceptions: Team, media or injury timeouts; equipment adjustment; through play; between periods; and during a measurement for a first down).

. . .

If committed while the ball is alive, these fouls are treated as dead-ball fouls.

PENALTY — Dead-ball foul or live-ball foul treated as dead-ball foul. 15 yards [S7 and S27] from the succeeding spot. Flagrant offenders, if players or substitutes, shall be disqualified [S47]. If a player or an identified squad member in uniform commits two unsportsmanlike fouls in the same game, he shall be disqualified.

Essentially what that means is that dead ball fouls are marked off on the NEXT play and do not ever result in a "re-do" of the play on which they occurred, despite what Lane Kiffin may believe.

But Tennessee could've recovered the ball!

Well, no. No they couldn't have. A scrimmage kick (A.K.A. Field Goal) is a live ball, recoverable by either team, only until it crosses the neutral zone. At that point, the kicking team can only recover the ball once it has been touched by the defending team. Further, if a scrimmage kick touches goes beyond the neutral zone its character changes. From that point forward, the ball is unrecoverable by the kicking team unless it goes on to touch a player on the defending team. To be clear, the initial block would not count toward this. It would need to be touched again. ~~Further, it would need to be touched before it touched the ground beyond the neutral zone.~~ (See update #2 below for correction)

Rule 2-15-1-b states: "Any free kick or scrimmage kick continues to be a kick until it is caught or recovered by a player or becomes dead."

Rule 4-3-h states that the ball becomes dead "when a return kick or scrimmage kick beyond the neutral zone is made." While this might seem to imply that the ball was kicked from beyond the neutral zone, what it really means is that the scrimmage kick (the ball that has been kicked) has crossed the neutral zone and touched something on the other side. (See update #2 below for correction)

Rule 5-4 discusses the "continuity of downs" and says that the continuity is broken in a number of circumstances like the expiration of the half or game, a change of possession during the play, failing to convert a fourth down, and so on. In other words, no matter what down it was, after one of these things, the next down is first down. In many cases, this means a change of possession. One such occurrence that breaks the continuity of downs is: "(b). A scrimmage kick crosses the neutral zone."

In short: when the ball was hit by Cody it was live and could have been recovered by either team . . . until it rolled past the neutral zone, at which point ~~it was dead by rule~~ (See update #2 below) it was only recoverable by Alabama. Julio Jones tracked the ball down and covered it up. At that point, the play was over and Alabama received possession.

Update #1: bobo_the_vol suggests that the mere act of the ball crossing the Neutral Zone didn't result in a dead ball, so there's at least that debatable point, but remember that in order for that to matter a 'Bama player would still have to touch it after it crossed the NZ but before a Tennessee player did.

Update #2: After spending a few hours last night poking around the NCAA football rule book, I see what bobo_the_vol was trying to say, and I now agree with him. My initial interpretations of a few different clauses in the rule book were incorrect. Upon further reading, Rule 4-3-h means exactly what I said it did not mean (oops). The rule that I was leaning on to provide that interpretation, after another few reads through, doesn't support my assertion as I thought it did. As a result, the initial post was incorrect: the ball was not dead before Julio fell on it. As far as this particular play is concerned, it's a distinction with no difference as the ball was never bobbled around and there wasn't a Tennessee player anywhere in the vicinity of it when Julio touched it, so the final conclusion of this post is still valid. Regardless, I regret the error and appreciate bobo_the_vol taking the time to educate my stubborn self .

But what if Tennessee got the ball before it crossed the neutral zone?

Someone arguing this is probably alluding to the rule that the game can't end on a defensive penalty. The problem is that that simple statement of the rule is not entirely correct. A more accurate portrayal of the rule is that the game can't end on a live ball foul. Rule 3-3 controls here:

Extension of Periods
ARTICLE 3. A period shall be extended until a down (other than a try), free from live-ball fouls not penalized as dead-ball fouls, has been played when:
a. A penalty is accepted for a live-ball foul(s) not penalized as a dead-ball foul that occurs during a down in which time expires (Exception: Rule 10-2-2-g-1) (A.R. 3-2-3-I-VIII).
b. Offsetting fouls occur during a down in which time expires.
c. An inadvertent whistle is sounded or an official signals the ball dead during a down in which time expires.

Live-ball fouls that are penalized as dead-ball fouls do not extend the game. So even if Tennessee had recovered that kick, the game would still have been over because the game is not extended by fouls that are treated like dead-ball fouls.

So what you're saying is that there's no way that Cody taking his helmet off could have given Tennessee another shot to win the game?

Exactly.