Did Oregon coach Dan Lanning intentionally call 12 defenders onto the field in Ohio State's penultimate offensive drive Saturday – knowing that it would either be missed by the officials (thereby aiding the Duck defense) or, even if flagged, it would end it's just a 5-per-yard penalty, but it cost the Buckeyes valuable time because of: A loophole in NCAA rules?
Maybe? Probably not? If so, why did he use it so judiciously and perhaps at great risk?
I have a lot of questions before this “he-did-it-on-purpose” thing makes complete sense. So do many college football coaches who are calling this week to discuss the topic.
In the end, of course, none of this matters. Oregon won 32-31, one of the largest victories in school history. Kudos to Dan Lanning and his Ducks for doing this.
And if everyone wants to call you a football expert for taking advantage of the regulations, just smile and deal with it. Print the legend, as they say.
That said, Lanning's late-game actions don't suggest he fully knew he had accomplished anything, even if the 12-man plan worked perfectly. At least they beg for additional answers.
Meanwhile, college coaches around the world are hesitant to implement their own plan to quell potential late-game (or first-half) offenses.
The NCAA is already turning its attention this week to considering an emergency rule change to close the loophole. They need to do this because it could ruin many games this weekend.
Confused? Everyone is there.
Here's a summary of the situation.
On Saturday, Oregon led 32-31 with 10 seconds left. Ohio State had the ball at the Ducks' 43-yard line facing third-and-25. After a timeout, the Ducks ended up with 12 defenders on the field as the Buckeyes, with three receivers on the right side (huddle formation) and only one (Jeremiah Smith) on the left side, threw the ball.
Buckeye quarterback Will Howard looked to his right first, but the presence of an extra defender likely thwarted that situation. Instead, he headed left to Smith, who was taking the fight in close to one-on-one situations, albeit with a safety to prevent a big play.
Duck cornerback Jabbar Muhammad made a great pass and knocked down the pass at the Oregon 30.
Ohio State coach Ryan Day immediately shouted for a too-many-man-on-the-field penalty, and he got it. However, due to a legal loophole, although the Buckeyes did gain five yards, they failed to reset the clock to pre-snap time. Instead, they faced a third-and-20 with just one six remaining seconds.
In this scenario, four seconds were more valuable than five yards. The penalty helped the team that committed it. Many wondered if this was the plan?
On the next play, Howard ran for 12 yards, but didn't get there in time for Ohio State to take a final timeout and attempt a potential game-winning field goal. Oregon won.
This rule is a mess, but did Lanning use it on purpose?
He was actually asked if he was a genius for doing this this week, but he didn't actually answer the question even though social media claimed he was.
Reporter: Much of the commentary world thought Dan was a genius for the 12-man penalty and declared it was intentional. Was it really the intention to get Jabbar (Muhammad) to throw one-on-one here?
Lanking: It wasn't one on one. We actually had security upstairs. That's why it's called “dog”. It wasn't surrounded by particularly tight boundaries. He was in a relationship with dogs where there was security over him. Yes, you know, there was a break before. We spend an inordinate amount of time on situations. There are situations that don't come up very often in college football, but this one we obviously worked on. So you can see the result.
Is this confirmation? When he mentions “situations,” does he mean penalty or insurance coverage?
If you listen or read carefully, it's not entirely clear. Maybe he did it. If so, good for Lanning.
The point is, if Ohio State had gained more than five yards, it could have waved away the penalty and taken the play. Moreover, the clock would (at least temporarily) be stopped due to the penalty.
If the plan was to send extra running backs to keep Ohio State from gaining yards, why only 12? Why not more? Send there 14.
And why would the plan to keep Ohio State from gaining more than five yards would include leaving Jeremiah Smith – perhaps the best receiver in the country – in essentially one-on-one coverage? By removing the group formation on the right side, Howard would almost certainly have to turn to Smith.
Sure, there was a safety that kept him from making a big gain or touchdown, but as Lanning noted, Muhammad didn't play “extremely tight.” If Smith catches that pass, he'll be on the 30-yard line, and that's possible if Muhammad or a safety makes an immediate tackle – not an easy task for a 6-3, 215-pound receiver. He'll probably get close enough for Ohio State to be able to make a 40-47 yard field goal attempt.
Did the genius who came up with a trick from the textbook and then implemented it intend to do so by setting up a game in which Ohio State is essentially tricked into throwing to its best weapon?
If so, why? Seems risky.
Or maybe this: Why didn't Lanning use this tactic when Ohio State was at its own 37-yard line with just 51 seconds left? This seems like a sweet spot to give up five or ten yards (if he uses this tactic more than once) in exchange for 15 or 20 seconds off the clock.
If Lanning knew about this vulnerability and planned to exploit it in such an important match, he would certainly also conduct analysis and analysis of the game situation to know where and when to best exploit it.
Not that he had to answer, but what would those situations be?
Instead, Oregon played its usual defense, and the Buckeyes drove to the Oregon 28-yard line with 28 seconds left. It was very close or within kicker Jayden Fielding's range – his long haul this season is 40 yards, but a 45-yard attempt would probably be reasonable.
Fortunately for the Ducks, two plays later, Smith was called for offensive pass interference and the Buckeyes were pushed back to the 43-yard line.
And one more thing: if the plan worked in the penultimate game, why not try it again in the last game? Put a bunch of defenders out there, snuff out everything Ohio State tried, and get five yards.
The clock will either run out or drop to a second or two, leaving no time for anything other than a Hail Mary or a 53-yard field goal.
Are those better odds than allowing Ohio State to play a game that, had Howard moved just a second earlier and called a timeout, would have given the Buckeyes a reasonable game-winning field goal attempt of about 45 yards?
I'm not sure, but again we'd like to hear an explanation.
In the end, everything worked out great for Oregon. Regardless of what happened at the end, Lanning played a great game and built an astonishingly great program in Eugene.
And if he knew what he was doing, he was a genius. If he didn't do that and timidly answers the question by praising him as a genius, then bravo.
Glory go to the winners.
