Soft Pretzel Logic

I also didn't see any lineman "downfield" on that play, but I had a bad angle so it's possible that was a good call. But what I'm writing about, in response to Fred's question, is that the fourth down play was not a designed pass, unlike the 1st TD. The play was a pitch play to the left side. But Sandberg smartly reversed the play when he realized he wasn't going to be able to score. Then he noticed Cisler opened, so he threw it. However, that wasn't the design of the play.

It wasn't an option play, it was a weak side toss. It's not surprising in that case that a lineman was blocking downfield because he wasn't expecting a pass that would make his blocking illegal. I think it's very likely therefore that one or more linemen were downfield considering the amount of time that passed before Sandberg actually threw the ball up. (remember he took the pitch running left, stopped, turned right sprinted across the field before finally throwing the ball)

THanks to Zach and fd for their clarifications.

Good research by JT on the rules

2 more questions for you guys: Earlier in the season, I asked if Bagnoli was in trouble. Does the shaky start to this season make this any more true?

Seems like his best days are over, based on recent performances.

Next one -- why was the Homecoming crowd so sparse? Did the students show up this week?

As a former player, I discussed the attendance issue with a number of other former players. One of the issues is that the University keeps moving the weekend around. It was actually two weeks earlier than last year! They also keep moving the time of the game, which is an issue with people traveling distances to see the game. I know there were a number of people tailgating in the vicinity of the stadium that had it on the radio and never made it inside. The student turnout the last few years has really been disappointing.

i was impressed that cisler and sandberg both had the awareness to make a pass happen on that play. a broken running play turning into a pass almost always gets the ineligible receiver downfield flag thrown, which sucks because it looks awesome when it's successful. plus, as fred mentioned (even though this wasn't a designed play), the percentages on that play are so low, why not just let the boys play?

there should be some sort of latitude built into the rule, if you ask me. if the point of the rule is to allow the defense to know how many people it has to cover downfield, then when a lineman ends up downfield only incidentally -- like when a running play breaks down -- what's the big deal?

Homecoming last year was only a week later than this year. It was October 28th, home against Brown.

As for this being Bagnoli's last year: His teams have lost more games over the last two years on bad breaks or, last year, a struggling kicker, than maybe any team I've ever seen. I feel like he's still the coach for this team and that they are going to win a title again and soon.

Jon - It was confusing to say the least. The play was definitely a run. A Penn tackle was downfield and appeared to be beyond the 3 yard "allowance" zone if he had indeed been pass blocking. Then as the play broke down, Sandberg pivoted back to his right. The OL man broke back toward the line of scimmage. At the time of the pass he seemed to be running on a slightly diagonal course toward the line of scrimmage. From the endzone markings he appears within the 3 yards from the line of scrimmage when Sandberg makes the pass.

There are a ton of NCAA rules; however, I'm not sure there is one that covers an obvious run play that converts to a pass play where the ineligible receiver is downfield during the run sequence, but gets back inside the neutral zone when the run play breaks down and it then becomes clear that a pass play is taking place.

I wasn't at the game, but is it possible somebody was blocking, like on the play JH was describing, subsequently lost contact and tried to re-engage at the 1 or so (which would be beyond the NZ if it's only the length of the football)? If that's the case, you could have the penalty called without a lineman being in the end zone. Just a thought, again, didn't see the play.

There were replays available online in yesterday's Daily Pennsylvanian. The video doesn't appear to be accessible anymore even through the archived stories.

The problem is that there is an NCAA rule that applies to pass blocking and pass plays and ineligible receivers downfield, but this play started out as a running play and, at the time the OL man made the run block and wandered into the endzone, everything was legal.

It's clear he was not blocking anyone after the play broke down - but it is likely that during the initial stages of the play he may have been beyond the 3 yard comfort zone (NCAA rule) following his run block. It was also clear he was still in the endzone, but not beyond 3 yards of the LOS when Sandberg turned right and started the pass portion of the play. THe OL man was definitely not stationary and was on the move, heading on a slight angle across the end zone and back toward the line of scrimmage.

The NCAA rule is fairly definitive on a pass play where pass blocking is involved. So the issue is what happens when a legal run block takes an ineligible receiver downfield, but then because of the nature of the play the runner scrambles and converts the play to a passing play - and - by that time the ineligible man is on the move but within the 3 yard comfort zone and returning toward the line of scrimmage.

There probably is nothing in the rule book that deals with this rather unusual circumstance. If there is or if there has been a similar rule interpretation in another NCAA game, it would be interesting to know what the result was in that case.