SB Nation User Blog: PeteHoliday

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.

SEC officiating crew from Ark-UF game suspended til Nov. 14: "There must be accountability in our...

PeteHoliday — Wed, 21 Oct 2009 22:12:42 -0000

SEC officiating crew from Ark-UF game suspended til Nov. 14: "There must be accountability in our officiating program," sez Commish Slive.

Per ESPN's Bruce Feldman in a twitter update this afternoon.

Mark Ingram status: Sitting in ice bath for entirety of today. Tuesday: rotor replacement and light...

PeteHoliday — Mon, 19 Oct 2009 13:51:57 -0000

Mark Ingram status: Sitting in ice bath for entirety of today. Tuesday: rotor replacement and light cardio. Wednesday: refueling at local air force base (pure Jet A, smoothie form) polishing of cowcatcher, 14 hour power nap. Thursday: open to the public for four hours of adoration and compliments. Friday: RAGE BUILDING. Saturday: do something like running for 242 yards like he did on Saturday against South Carolina, because he is a terrifying machine right now, and worthy of whatever worthless trophies you care to throw in his path. He will crush them and continue on to the horizon, because that is what train-men-monsters do instead of prissing and nancying around with ribbons and medals.

Orson Swindle on the EDSBS Curious Index for 10/19

'Bama Demolishes the COI in Rebuttal

PeteHoliday — Tue, 13 Oct 2009 21:36:34 -0000

Today the University of Alabama released its rebuttal to the NCAA Committee on Infractions' response to the University's appeal. The story you're likely reading from the major news outlets this afternoon is one like this:

According to documents released Tuesday, the NCAA in responding to Alabama's textbook appeal called Alabama a "serial repeat violator" with an "abysmal infractions track record" and an "extensive recent history of infractions cases unmatched by any other member institution in the NCAA."

Most of the articles that I've seen on the topic have been couched in thinly-veiled (some more thinly than others) "ha ha, those cheating Bammers" type language. The reason isn't any sort of media conspiracy, though, it's just laziness on the part of reporters rushing to get their story out.

If you're not up to speed on this whole deal, go check out A Primer on the NCAA Sanctions and The University's NCAA Appeal. The executive summary is this: a small handful of Alabama players thought they were taking advantage of the University by getting some extra textbook rentals. The NCAA imposed sanctions well in excess of anything that they had in the past for similar violations and the University took umbrage with that.

The Appellate Process

The NCAA's appellate process is one with which I have only a passing and academic familiarity with, I'm not your compliance attorney, keep that in mind when reading what follows. A common sentiment I've seen from 'Bama fans in the wake of these news reports is adequately summed up by DocFumbles in this fanpost.

I think we made some very good points, although when you appeal to the NCAA, I find no reason to believe they'll do anything about it. They have no oversight and seem to blindly do as they please, as with the Florida State case.

In a sense, this is accurate, but it misses a subtle distinction in the NCAA infractions process that you might or might not believe is important, depending on your level of cynicism. That distinction is this:

The NCAA's appellate body is separate and distinct from the Committee on Infractions. Which is to say that while, in a certain sense, we're appealing the NCAA's decision back to the NCAA, that is much like saying that when you're found guilty of a crime, you appeal that decision back to the state. Technically true, but it misses the point.

The bottom line is that the appeals committee is a different group of people from the COI and the group that handles the appeals has no reason to defer to the COI in any way, shape, or form. They improve the station of the NCAA not by backing the Committee on Infractions at every turn, but by keeping the COI in line.

The order of events goes something like this:

COI releases findings and sanctions
Alabama files an appellate brief, asking the appeals committee to take certain action
The COI files a response brief, attempting to defend the claims made by Alabama's response
Alabama is permitted to file a rebuttal to that response
The appeals committee reads all of the relevant documents and renders some decision

Right now, we're talking about the documents produced by steps #3 and #4 while we wait for #5.

The COI's Response

I'm having a difficult time locating a copy of the NCAA COI's response to Alabama's appeal, but what I can infer about it from Alabama's rebuttal and the news stories is not pretty. From what I can tell, the bottom line is that the COI must have realized, after reading Alabama's appeal, that they completely botched the sanctions portion of the case and that Alabama's compliance department had made them look awfully silly.

So, instead of attempting to salvage some semblance of fairness and rebut Alabama's insistence that the penalties were an abuse of discretion, the COI resorted to using 25-cent words and calling names.

Alabama's rebuttal to this response is beautiful, on-message, and really does a marvelous job of not only reiterating its main points from the appeal but also exposing the COI's response for what it is: an attempt to distract from the real legal issues present in the University's appeal.

(If I happen to find a copy of the response, I'll update this post)

The University of Alabama's Rebuttal

Alabama's rebuttal can be found here in PDF format. If this issue is even remotely interesting to you, you should take some time to check it out. It is only 14 double-spaced pages, and really does (in my opinion) a good job of putting things in perspective. It's really a fantastic read.

In fact, the first two paragraphs accurately sum up the major issues with the NCAA COI's response:

The brief submitted on behalf of the Committee on Infractions ("COI") in this matter is distinctive in two respects: an omission and an addition. First and most strikingly, the COI Brief omits any discussion of other textbook cases that have come before the NCAA, a factor which is both relevant and necessary for the determination of whether the penalty in this case is an abuse of discretion. The fact that no vacation-of-wins penalty was entered in any prior textbook case is a fact which cannot be avoided, and a fact which warrants a reversal of that unprecedented penalty in this case.

Second, the COI Brief compounds its initial error of omission with an error of addition, adding a justification for its vacation-of-wins decision beyond that set out in the Public Infractions Report. That purported justification -- the University's status as a repeat violator -- is not a stated basis for the actual decision of the COI; is contrary to the statements made by the COI during its oral explanation of its decision; and, even if supported by the decision, would be further evidence of an abuse of discretion, as it ignores bylaws and precedent addressing repeat violator penalties.

That's how you absolutely dismantle a response brief in two simple paragraphs. The rebuttal goes on for 12 more pages to go over these things in detail -- including directly addressing the allegation that the University's history of infractions is "unmatched by any other institution" (turns out that's not even close to accurate), pointing out that the COI completely ignored the biggest problem with their initial sanctions, and generally making the folks who wrote the COI response look like they had no idea what the hell they were doing.

I'm not sure what has changed in our compliance department since 2002, but in a lot of ways the change is not dissimilar to the change in the football program. Even our lawyers have gotten their swagger back.

Conclusion

I've said before that I really believe that the appeals committee has to reverse the vacation of wins. I was concerned that the COI would, upon having their precedent issue exposed, come up with a good justification and give the appeals committee an out to come down on their side. After seeing all this, though, it seems pretty clear (at least to me) that the appeals committee can't possibly find against Alabama without establishing new precedent for all future infractions proceedings. The COI in this case was so far out of bounds, that to uphold their decision would essentially be giving them carte blanche to do whatever they want, and that's something I find it difficult to believe that the appeals committee would actually do.

That said, attempting to predict what any branch of the NCAA will do is a dangerous endeavor, so don't go adding those wins back to your stat books just quite yet.

Deeplink isn't working in the embed for some reason -- but the portion 1:02 in . . . looks awfully...

PeteHoliday — Mon, 28 Sep 2009 18:46:20 -0000

Deeplink isn't working in the embed for some reason -- but the portion 1:02 in . . . looks awfully familiar:

"If we start getting teams who audible into a sell-out type formation when we line up in the Wild[whatever], . . . it wouldn’t take much for McElroy to get the ball and launch it to the end-zone."

How Many Wins Does Alabama Have?

PeteHoliday — Mon, 07 Sep 2009 20:32:16 -0000

Harsh, but fair.

In a post earlier today, Kleph posted that Alabama re-got its 800th win Saturday night against Virginia Tech. As was pointed out by one alert commenter, this wasn't quite the case. After some back-and-forth emails and a little more leg work, he asked me to write this clarifying post and chain him to the wall in the RBR dungeon as penance for his inaccurate post.

Here's the scoop: despite the fact that the NCAA handed down their ruling on the textbook infraction quite some time ago, neither the NCAA record book, nor the University's athletic department website have yet been updated to account for the penalties. In fact, the University released this press release which includes a snippet about the 800th win.

Kleph assumed that the press-release took into account the sanctions, did some quick math, and back-dated to 2006 for our "first" 800th win. That wasn't accurate. This confusion is likely because the appeal is still pending and, as such, there's some question as to whether or not the sanctions have taken effect. Even if they have, the University (and the NCAA) likely won't take the time to update their records until the decision is finalized with the NCAA's ruling on the appeal.

It's probably safe to say Alabama did earn its 800th win Saturday night, at least temporarily. Whether the VA Tech win will remain the 800th, however, is not yet known. If the appeal is unsuccessful, we will drop somewhere into the 770's, leaving us 8th or 9th on the all-time wins leader board, depending on the exact number of games vacated.

Why the University would draw attention to this potentially ephemeral stat in a press release, I'm not sure. It could be because they assume the appeal will be successful. It could be because the sanctions aren't in effect yet, so we've got our 800th win (at least for now). Or it could just be the case of some athletic department employee paying a little less attention to their job than they should, seeing a nice, round number, and padding the word-count a bit.

Regardless, we here at RBR hate getting things wrong and regret the error. Many thanks to watershed7 who picked this one out. Kleph will be back to his normal posting duties when he's finished listening to a mouthy fan boast about the greatness of the Big Ten, reading through the complete archives of an Auburn message board, and we unchain him from the dungeon wall.

Virginia Tech Rammer Jammer.

PeteHoliday — Sun, 06 Sep 2009 06:06:02 -0000

Virginia Tech Rammer Jammer.