Did Oregon coach Dan Lanning deliberately call for 12 defenders to take the field on Ohio State’s penultimate offensive play on Saturday, knowing the referees wouldn’t pass it (thus helping the Duck defense) or even if he was called? , would result in only 5-? Penalty yardage but cost the Buckeyes precious time on the clock due to a loophole in the NCAA rulebook?
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. The same goes for several college football coaches who will call this week to discuss the issue.
In the end, none of this matters, of course. Oregon won 32-31, one of the largest victories in school history. Everyone salutes Dan Lanning and his Ducks for that.
And if everyone wants to declare you a soccer expert for exploiting the rule book, just smile and move on. Print the legend, as the saying goes.
That said, Lanning’s actions late in the game don’t suggest he fully knew he was onto something, even if the 12-man plan ended up working perfectly. At least they ask for some additional answers.
Meanwhile, college coaches around the world are up in arms about whether they should implement their own plan to shut down potential late-game (or end-of-the-first-half) attacks.
The NCAA is already meeting this week to consider an emergency rule change to close the loophole. They need him because he could ruin a lot of games this weekend.
Confused? Everyone is.
Here is a summary of the situation.
Oregon led 32-31 with 10 seconds left on Saturday. Ohio State had the ball at the Ducks’ 43-yard line facing a third-and-25. After a timeout, the Ducks ended up with 12 defenders on the field when the Buckeyes, with three receivers on the right (huddle formation) and only one (Jeremiah Smith) on the left, broke the ball.
Buckeye quarterback Will Howard looked to his right first, but the presence of the extra cornerback likely ruined that. Instead, he went left to Smith, who had something close to one-on-one coverage, albeit with a safety over him to prevent the big play.
Duck cornerback Jabbar Muhammad made a great cut on the ball and knocked down the pass at the Oregon 30-yard line.
Ohio State coach Ryan Day immediately yelled for a penalty for having too many men on the field and got it. However, due to the loophole, although the Buckeyes gained five yards, they were unable to reset the clock to the time before the snap. Instead, they faced the 3rd and 20th with only six seconds remaining.
In that scenario, four seconds were worth five yards. The penalty helped the team that committed the penalty. That’s why many wondered, was that the plan?
On the next play, Howard ran for 12 yards but did not arrive in time for Ohio State to use its final timeout and attempt a potential game-winning field goal. Oregon won.
The rule is a disaster, but did Lanning deliberately take advantage of it?
Basically this week he was asked if he was a genius for doing it, but he didn’t actually answer the question, even though social media claimed he was.
Reporter: Much of the commentary world decided and considered you a genius, Dan, for the 12-man penalty and declared it was intentional. Was it really intentional to induce the one-on-one pitch to Jabbar (Muhammad) there?
Lanning: It wasn’t one on one. In fact, we had a safety on us. That’s why it’s called “dog.” It wasn’t in extremely tight cover. He was in dog coverage where you have a safety on him. Yeah, you know, there was a wait time before that. We spend an excessive amount of time on situations. There are some situations that don’t come up very often in college football, but this is obviously something we had worked on. So you can see the result.
Is that a confirmation? When talking about “situations” are you referring to the penalty or coverage?
If you listen or read carefully, that is not entirely clear. Maybe he did. If so, good for Lanning.
Except here’s the thing: If Ohio State had gained more than five yards, then it could have declined the penalty and made the play. Even better, the stopwatch would have (at least temporarily) stopped due to the penalty.
If the plan was to send in extra defenders to prevent Ohio State from gaining yards, why only 12? Why not more? Send 14 there.
And why would the plan to prevent Ohio State from gaining more than five yards include leaving Jeremiah Smith, perhaps the best receiver in the country, in essentially one-on-one coverage? By eliminating the formation of the group on the right, Howard would almost certainly have to turn to Smith.
Sure, there was a safety to prevent him from making a big gain or a touchdown, but as Lanning noted, Muhammad wasn’t playing “extremely tight coverage.” If Smith catches that pass, he’ll be at the 30-yard line and that’s if Muhammad or the safety makes an immediate tackle, no easy task against the 6-3, 215-pound receiver. It’s probably close enough that Ohio State can attempt a field goal from 40 to 47 yards.
Was a mastermind who discovered a rules trick and then employed it going to do so by creating a play in which Ohio State is essentially induced to launch its best weapon?
If so, why? It seems risky.
Or how about this: Why didn’t Lanning use the tactic when Ohio State was at its own 37-yard line with just 51 seconds left? That seems like the ideal place to give up five or 10 yards (if you employ the tactic more than once) in exchange for 15 or 20 seconds off the clock.
If Lanning knew about this loophole and planned to use it in such an important game, then he certainly would have also run game analytics and situations to know where and when to best use it.
Not that I’m obligated 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. That was very close or within reach for kicker Jayden Fielding: His length this season is 40 yards, but going for a 45-yarder probably would have been reasonable.
Fortunately for the Ducks, two plays later, Smith was called for offensive pass interference and the Buckeyes were pushed to the 43-yard line.
And then there’s one more: if the plan worked on the penultimate play, why not try it again on the final play? Put a group of defenders there, shut down whatever Ohio State was trying to do, and take the five yards.
Time would have run out or been reduced to a second or two, leaving no time for anything more than a Hail Mary or a 53-yard field goal attempt.
Are those odds better than allowing Ohio State to run a play that, if Howard had slipped just a second earlier and called a timeout, would have given the Buckeyes a reasonable field goal attempt of about 45 yards to win the game? ?
I’m not sure, but again, we’d love to hear the explanation.
In the end, everything worked out very well for Oregon. Regardless of what happened in the end, Lanning coached a great game and built an astonishingly great program in Eugene.
And if he knew what he was doing, then he’s a genius. If he didn’t and is timid in his response to a question that hails him as a genius, good for him.
To the winners, praise goes.
