So where in the world to begin with what happened on Powers Field at Princeton Stadium Saturday?
The stadium is 23 years old now, and what happened Saturday has to be the craziest stuff that ever played out there. This was crazier than the 2012 Princeton comeback against Harvard. It was crazier than the 2006 overtime win over Penn, when Rob Toresco lateraled to Jeff Terrell on a fourth-and-goal from the 1.
This might have been crazier than those two combined.
To review, Princeton and Harvard came into the game unbeaten and tied for first place in the league. Both were nationally ranked.
The game figured to be close. There was a lot riding on it. Nobody was prepared for what ended up playing out.
In the end, the teams played through five overtimes before Princeton won 18-16. This game had everything, including controversy.
So perhaps TigerBlog should start there. Let him start out by saying that emotions run high and that he sees both sides of the equation.
The situation was this: Princeton and Harvard played through regulation at 13-13. In the first two overtimes, both teams kicked field goals and then came up empty, making it 16-16. The news rules say that starting in the third overtime, teams will alternate two-point conversion attempts until one scores and the other doesn't.
Princeton went first in the third overtime and did not score. Harvard lined up for its play, snapped the ball and appeared to convert. That's where the craziness peaked.
For starters, Princeton head coach Bob Surace was trying desperately to call timeout before the Harvard try. After it wasn't granted by the officials and the play was run, Surace pointed to the replay booth. The officials then conferred and said that Surace had in fact called timeout before the snap, which resulted in disallowing the Harvard score. Offensive pass interference was called on the next snap, again nullifying a Harvard score. Harvard was then stopped, and Princeton won it two OT's later on Jacob Birmelin's incredible catch in the corner of the end zone.
The Ivy League put out an official statement yesterday saying that 1) Surace had in fact called timeout before the play but 2) the timeout play should not have been reviewed by the replay booth.
As TB said before, he sees both sides. Had the play not been reviewed, Harvard would have won. If you're a Harvard fan, you're irate.
But he also sees the No. 1 undeniable fact of the situation: Surace called timeout before the ball was snapped.
If you think it should count, you're saying it's not reviewable, not that he didn't call it. This isn't whether Birmelin stepped on the line on a fourth-quarter catch that ended in the end zone or if he caught the ball in the fourth overtime, calls that both went against Princeton (and by all indications, both reviews were correct). In this case, there is no interpretation of what happened on the field here.
It wasn't a judgement call. Surace called timeout. It was clear from the press box even before the review. Even the most ardent Harvard fan has to admit that. Nobody can argue that.
And so, that leaves the other undeniable fact - the play should not have counted - and it didn't.
The controversy overshadows what was an incredible defensive effort by both teams, one that was reminiscent of the 2018 Princeton-Dartmouth game. Both teams contested every yard, of which there weren't many.
Princeton and Brown a week ago combined for 1,140 yards. Princeton and Harvard combined for 491 yards. Both teams averaged 1.3 yards per rush. It was an incredible effort by both.
As is the case with tight defensive games, every possession became the highest of drama. Any play could have turned the game in a hundred different directions.
As TB said Friday, hidden yards played a big role. Princeton punter Will Powers was incredible, averaging 45.4 yards on his five punts, with two of more than 50, on a day when field position was at a premium. Powers was so good that Harvard only was able to even attempt to return one of the five punts, and that was for no yards.
With this game over, Princeton is now 6-0, 3-0 in the league. The Tigers are 24-2 in their last 26 games.
There are four more league games. All will be challenging. Three are on the road, including back-to-back Friday night ESPNU games at Cornell (this Friday) and Dartmouth. Short weeks. Long trips. Not an easy combination.
The league is bunched now. Princeton is 3-0. Harvard, Yale, Columbia and Dartmouth are all 2-1. Nothing is a gimme.
The next four weeks will be intense and unpredictable, with one prediction: It can't be as crazy as it was Saturday.
Posts
5 comments:
A Dartmouth fan here. I think two wrongs make it right. The referees missed the timeout call and then allowed a review. Both are mistakes. But I think Princeton deserved the timeout. It's the right thing to do because everyone (except the referees) saw the timeout attempt.
The rules are the rules. The officials decision on the field of not calling the timeout is the fact of what happened. According to the rules that decision cannot be reviewed. The game was over on that successful attempt by Harvard. I have no affiliation to either team. As a former official, there is nothing to be discussed. Harvard won the game in the third overtime and the game was over. The review official had no right to make any decision of the veracity of the time out request. The Ivy League officials acknowledged this at 12:30 PM on Sunday. Without saying otherwise they are relying on Princeton's honor to acknowledge the loss without asking for it directly. There can be shame in an ill-gotten victory. If Princeton doss not acknowledge the loss what has the program learned about Honor?
The 1940 Cornell team history is far better known for its honorable forfeit than it ever would have been for completing an undefeated season. Harvard won on Saturday.
It is a travesty that the Ivy League so quickly and emotionally reacted by issuing an "asterisk" statement without a proper analysis of the NCAA 2021 Football Rules Book. It leaves men of one team feeling as if they were robbed and men on another team perhaps feeling as if they don't deserve their hard fought victory. I am a lawyer. I read statutes and rules every day for a living. The Ivy League got some bad advice or "too quick" advice.
NCAA 2021 Football Rules Book. Rule 2, Section 10 Foul definition: "A foul is a rule for which a penalty is prescribed."
Rule 12, Section 3, Art. 7 "No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct obvious errors that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the game, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable (See Article 8, following)."
Article 8 then goes on to list 8 specific "fouls" like targeting, too many players on field, illegal pass, etc., that are "reviewable."
A quick read by most, including the Ivy League, leaves the reader with the impression that calling timeout is not a reviewable "foul" so Harvard's two-point conversion should stand because the replay official was not supposed to "review" Princeton's legal calling for a timeout before the play (which, as we know, was ignored by the officials on the field).
HOWEVER, we must read ALL of the rules to properly determine the actions of the officials in Saturday's game. Calling a legitimate time out is not a "foul" as defined above because it is not an "infraction" for which a penalty is prescribed. Therefore, under Article 7 above it is not on the "unreviewable" fouls list and it was appropriately reviewable by "the replay official [to] correct obvious errors that may have a significant impact on the outcome of the game."
Princeton won the game fairly by the rules. The officials acted properly. There was no "procedural error" as the Ivy League termed it. A retraction and apology to all is warranted.
From Page 5 of the 2019 NCAA All Division Football Instant Replay Coaches Manual:
Limitations on Reviewable Plays
ARTICLE 7. No other plays or officiating decisions are reviewable. However, the replay official may correct egregious errors, including those involving the game clock, whether or not a play is reviewable. This excludes fouls that are not specifically reviewable (See Article 8, following).
In other words, the replay official is fully entitled to use his best judgment to "correct egregious errors" which have affected the game.
That is, the League office erred in saying that the replay official was not entitled to review the relevant play, if in his judgment the oversight was "egregious."
Post a Comment