Controversial call in Princeton vs Harvard football game

Shades of the famous 5th down game between Cornell and Dartmouth.

Ivy League Statement:

In the third overtime, Harvard threw a pass for a successful two-point conversion. After the play, the replay booth stopped the game for an official review. While the review did determine that the Princeton head coach called for timeout before the ball was snapped, the officiating crew made a procedural error as a timeout can only be recognized and granted prior to the snap by an on-field official and is not reviewable. Therefore, the timeout should not have been granted and the play should have resulted in a successful two-point conversion.

The outcome of the game will stand as a win for Princeton. The league office will address the error with the officials.

[ivyleague.com]

Ken711
Shades of the famous 5th down game between Cornell and Dartmouth.

Ivy League Statement:

In the third overtime, Harvard threw a pass for a successful two-point conversion. After the play, the replay booth stopped the game for an official review. While the review did determine that the Princeton head coach called for timeout before the ball was snapped, the officiating crew made a procedural error as a timeout can only be recognized and granted prior to the snap by an on-field official and is not reviewable. Therefore, the timeout should not have been granted and the play should have resulted in a successful two-point conversion.

The outcome of the game will stand as a win for Princeton. The league office will address the error with the officials.

[ivyleague.com]

Cornell, however, acknowledged the officiating error and conceded the game. It was really a BFD, as Cornell was undefeated and ranked number one in the country at the time (hard to believe now).

George64

Ken711
Shades of the famous 5th down game between Cornell and Dartmouth.

Ivy League Statement:

In the third overtime, Harvard threw a pass for a successful two-point conversion. After the play, the replay booth stopped the game for an official review. While the review did determine that the Princeton head coach called for timeout before the ball was snapped, the officiating crew made a procedural error as a timeout can only be recognized and granted prior to the snap by an on-field official and is not reviewable. Therefore, the timeout should not have been granted and the play should have resulted in a successful two-point conversion.

The outcome of the game will stand as a win for Princeton. The league office will address the error with the officials.

[ivyleague.com]

Cornell, however, acknowledged the officiating error and conceded the game. It was really a BFD, as Cornell was undefeated and ranked number one in the country at the time (hard to believe now).

Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

jtwcornell91
It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become.

What's wrong with ties?! The closest I have ever seen Lynah come to a riot was after a tie, so it's not like they're not exciting.

I feel your pain. And, unfortunately, college hockey caught the bug when many of us were not paying attention.

Can't wait to see some mostly irrelevant three-on-three hockey and shootouts!!!111

George64

Ken711
Shades of the famous 5th down game between Cornell and Dartmouth.

The outcome of the game will stand as a win for Princeton. The league office will address the error with the officials.

Cornell, however, acknowledged the officiating error and conceded the game. It was really a BFD, as Cornell was undefeated and ranked number one in the country at the time (hard to believe now).

The 5th down game is part of Cornell football lore. For those unfamiliar, here's the excerpt from Bob Kane's book Good Sports - A History of Cornell Athletics. BTW, Bob Kane was AD when Lynah Rink was built.

George64

George64

Ken711
Shades of the famous 5th down game between Cornell and Dartmouth.

The outcome of the game will stand as a win for Princeton. The league office will address the error with the officials.

Cornell, however, acknowledged the officiating error and conceded the game. It was really a BFD, as Cornell was undefeated and ranked number one in the country at the time (hard to believe now).

The 5th down game is part of Cornell football lore. For those unfamiliar, here's the excerpt from Bob Kane's book Good Sports - A History of Cornell Athletics. BTW, Bob Kane was AD when Lynah Rink was built.

Bob Kane was one of Cornell's greatest ADs.

Ken711

George64
The 5th down game is part of Cornell football lore. For those unfamiliar, here's the excerpt from Bob Kane's book Good Sports - A History of Cornell Athletics. BTW, Bob Kane was AD when Lynah Rink was built.

Bob Kane was one of Cornell's greatest ADs.

Yes, he hired Ned Harkness!

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

Here's the TLDR account from the Harvard Crimson account.

Out here in Big 10 14 country we learned about the new overtime procedure this weekend when Illinois upset Penn State in a record-setting 9 overtime periods. In the first two overtime periods each team gets the ball 25 yards out and tries to score in the usual fashion - touchdown, field goal. Then they revert to each getting one play from the 3 yard line in a two-extra-point attempt.

David Harding

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

Here's the TLDR account from the Harvard Crimson account.

Out here in Big 10 14 country we learned about the new overtime procedure this weekend when Illinois upset Penn State in a record-setting 9 overtime periods. In the first two overtime periods each team gets the ball 25 yards out and tries to score in the usual fashion - touchdown, field goal. Then they revert to each getting one play from the 3 yard line in a two-extra-point attempt.

Good lord. Ties were ok for 140 years.

But now our entire economy is based on sports gambling sites, so here we are.

RichH

David Harding

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

Here's the TLDR account from the Harvard Crimson account.

Out here in Big 10 14 country we learned about the new overtime procedure this weekend when Illinois upset Penn State in a record-setting 9 overtime periods. In the first two overtime periods each team gets the ball 25 yards out and tries to score in the usual fashion - touchdown, field goal. Then they revert to each getting one play from the 3 yard line in a two-extra-point attempt.

Good lord. Ties were ok for 140 years.

But now our entire economy is based on sports gambling sites, so here we are.

The stupid thing is that, in hockey at least, adding shootouts and 3x3 OT doesn't actually simplify things into wins and losses, but replaces three possible results with four. Instead of bonus hockey to possibly settle the game, you've already awarded 2/3 of the points and are now just playing for the last 1/3. (And that's in the IIHF version that's at least zero-sum.)

jtwcornell91

RichH

David Harding

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

Here's the TLDR account from the Harvard Crimson account.

Out here in Big 10 14 country we learned about the new overtime procedure this weekend when Illinois upset Penn State in a record-setting 9 overtime periods. In the first two overtime periods each team gets the ball 25 yards out and tries to score in the usual fashion - touchdown, field goal. Then they revert to each getting one play from the 3 yard line in a two-extra-point attempt.

Good lord. Ties were ok for 140 years.

But now our entire economy is based on sports gambling sites, so here we are.

The stupid thing is that, in hockey at least, adding shootouts and 3x3 OT doesn't actually simplify things into wins and losses, but replaces three possible results with four. Instead of bonus hockey to possibly settle the game, you've already awarded 2/3 of the points and are now just playing for the last 1/3. (And that's in the IIHF version that's at least zero-sum.)

Or zero-dumb. Imagine having to add 3x3 practice sessions to all the other permutations of man up and man down situations.

I'm not much of a rules nerd. Will we have 3x2 and 2x2 hockey if there are penalties in OT? (Add two more practice scenarios?!?)

marty

jtwcornell91

RichH

David Harding

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

Here's the TLDR account from the Harvard Crimson account.

Out here in Big 10 14 country we learned about the new overtime procedure this weekend when Illinois upset Penn State in a record-setting 9 overtime periods. In the first two overtime periods each team gets the ball 25 yards out and tries to score in the usual fashion - touchdown, field goal. Then they revert to each getting one play from the 3 yard line in a two-extra-point attempt.

Good lord. Ties were ok for 140 years.

But now our entire economy is based on sports gambling sites, so here we are.

The stupid thing is that, in hockey at least, adding shootouts and 3x3 OT doesn't actually simplify things into wins and losses, but replaces three possible results with four. Instead of bonus hockey to possibly settle the game, you've already awarded 2/3 of the points and are now just playing for the last 1/3. (And that's in the IIHF version that's at least zero-sum.)

Or zero-dumb. Imagine having to add 3x3 practice sessions to all the other permutations of man up and man down situations.

I'm not much of a rules nerd. Will we have 3x2 and 2x2 hockey if there are penalties in OT? (Add two more practice scenarios?!?)

I doubt gambling has much to do with the elimination of ties. For gambling sites, ties are just another line that they can offer. Money-line bets in soccer are 3-way, for example, and you can bet on a 3-way money line for just regulation for NHL games.

marty

jtwcornell91

RichH

David Harding

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

Here's the TLDR account from the Harvard Crimson account.

Out here in Big 10 14 country we learned about the new overtime procedure this weekend when Illinois upset Penn State in a record-setting 9 overtime periods. In the first two overtime periods each team gets the ball 25 yards out and tries to score in the usual fashion - touchdown, field goal. Then they revert to each getting one play from the 3 yard line in a two-extra-point attempt.

Good lord. Ties were ok for 140 years.

But now our entire economy is based on sports gambling sites, so here we are.

The stupid thing is that, in hockey at least, adding shootouts and 3x3 OT doesn't actually simplify things into wins and losses, but replaces three possible results with four. Instead of bonus hockey to possibly settle the game, you've already awarded 2/3 of the points and are now just playing for the last 1/3. (And that's in the IIHF version that's at least zero-sum.)

Or zero-dumb. Imagine having to add 3x3 practice sessions to all the other permutations of man up and man down situations.

I'm not much of a rules nerd. Will we have 3x2 and 2x2 hockey if there are penalties in OT? (Add two more practice scenarios?!?)

In case you're serious, if there's a penalty in OT, they play 4x3.

Jeff Hopkins '82

marty

jtwcornell91

RichH

David Harding

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

Here's the TLDR account from the Harvard Crimson account.

Out here in Big 10 14 country we learned about the new overtime procedure this weekend when Illinois upset Penn State in a record-setting 9 overtime periods. In the first two overtime periods each team gets the ball 25 yards out and tries to score in the usual fashion - touchdown, field goal. Then they revert to each getting one play from the 3 yard line in a two-extra-point attempt.

Good lord. Ties were ok for 140 years.

But now our entire economy is based on sports gambling sites, so here we are.

The stupid thing is that, in hockey at least, adding shootouts and 3x3 OT doesn't actually simplify things into wins and losses, but replaces three possible results with four. Instead of bonus hockey to possibly settle the game, you've already awarded 2/3 of the points and are now just playing for the last 1/3. (And that's in the IIHF version that's at least zero-sum.)

Or zero-dumb. Imagine having to add 3x3 practice sessions to all the other permutations of man up and man down situations.

I'm not much of a rules nerd. Will we have 3x2 and 2x2 hockey if there are penalties in OT? (Add two more practice scenarios?!?)

In case you're serious, if there's a penalty in OT, they play 4x3.

And then 4x4 from the end of the penalty until the next whistle, right?

yup and it can go to 5x3 as well

jtwcornell91

Jeff Hopkins '82

marty

jtwcornell91

RichH

David Harding

jtwcornell91

Scersk '97

Ken711
Doesn't look like Princeton will be so gracious and give the win back to Harvard.

Harvard's 2-point conversion came in the "bottom of the inning" too, so Princeton's possible concession would be most rational. There would seem to be no "we would've played the rest of the game differently" excuse.

It took me a while to figure out what happened from the summary, since I've apparently lost track of how goofy college football overtime has become. (I mistakenly assumed a two-point conversion had to follow an actual touchdown, so I thought Princeton had scored 8 points in their part of the OT and Harvard ended up with only 6 points because of the nullified play.) Also, I assumed they had signalled timeout at some point during the play, not that they let the whole play happen and then retroactively noticed the illegal timeout.

I think it's just as well I don't pay attention to college football anyway.

Here's the TLDR account from the Harvard Crimson account.

Out here in Big 10 14 country we learned about the new overtime procedure this weekend when Illinois upset Penn State in a record-setting 9 overtime periods. In the first two overtime periods each team gets the ball 25 yards out and tries to score in the usual fashion - touchdown, field goal. Then they revert to each getting one play from the 3 yard line in a two-extra-point attempt.

Good lord. Ties were ok for 140 years.

But now our entire economy is based on sports gambling sites, so here we are.

The stupid thing is that, in hockey at least, adding shootouts and 3x3 OT doesn't actually simplify things into wins and losses, but replaces three possible results with four. Instead of bonus hockey to possibly settle the game, you've already awarded 2/3 of the points and are now just playing for the last 1/3. (And that's in the IIHF version that's at least zero-sum.)

Or zero-dumb. Imagine having to add 3x3 practice sessions to all the other permutations of man up and man down situations.

I'm not much of a rules nerd. Will we have 3x2 and 2x2 hockey if there are penalties in OT? (Add two more practice scenarios?!?)

In case you're serious, if there's a penalty in OT, they play 4x3.

And then 4x4 from the end of the penalty until the next whistle, right?

Correct.