Did Dan Lanning knowingly exploit the rulebook in Oregon's win over Ohio State? Let the debate begin
Did Oregon head coach Dan Lanning purposely call for 12 defenders to take the field on Ohio State’s penultimate offensive snap Saturday — knowing that it would either be missed by the refs (thus aiding the Duck defense) or even if flagged would result in just a 5-yard penalty but cost the Buckeyes precious time on the clock because of an NCAA rulebook loophole?
Maybe? Probably not? If so, why did he use it so judiciously, and perhaps with great risk?
I have so many questions before this he-did-it-on-purpose makes complete sense. So do multiple college football coaches who are calling around this week debating the topic.
In the end, none of this matters, of course. Oregon won 32-31, one of the greatest victories in school history. All hail Dan Lanning and his Ducks for that.
And if everyone wants to declare you a football savant for exploiting the rulebook, just smile and go with it. Print the legend, as the saying goes.
That said, Lanning’s late-game actions don’t suggest he fully knew he was onto something even if the 12-men plan wound up working perfectly. They at least beg for some additional answers.
Meanwhile, college coaches everywhere are up in arms about whether to install their own plan to snuff out potential late-game (or late first-half) drives.
The NCAA quickly huddled this week to consider an emergency rule change to close the loophole, which it ultimately made Wednesday afternoon. It needed to because it could have wrecked so many games this weekend.
Confused? Everyone is.
Here’s a recap of the situation.
Oregon led 32-31 with 10 seconds remaining on Saturday. Ohio State had the ball at the Ducks' 43-yard line facing a third-and-25. Following a timeout, the Ducks wound up with 12 defenders on the field when the Buckeyes, with three receivers to the right (bunch formation) and just one (Jeremiah Smith) to the left, snapped the ball.
Ohio State quarterback Will Howard first looked to the right, but the presence of the extra cornerback likely mucked that up. Instead he went left to Smith, who had something close to one-on-one coverage, albeit with a safety over the top to prevent the big play.
Oregon cornerback Jabbar Muhammad made a great break on the ball and knocked the pass down at the Oregon 30.
Ohio State head coach Ryan Day screamed immediately for a too-many-men-on-the-field penalty and got it. However, because of the loophole, while the Buckeyes did get 5 yards, they didn’t get to reset the clock to the pre-snap time. Instead they faced third-and-20 with just six seconds remaining.
In that scenario, four seconds were more valuable than 5 yards. The penalty aided the team that committed the penalty. Thus many wondered, was that the plan?
On the next play, Howard scrambled for 12 yards but didn’t get down in time for Ohio State to use its last timeout and attempt a potential game-winning field goal. Oregon won.
The rule is a mess, but did Lanning purposely exploit it?
He was essentially asked if he was a genius this week for doing so but didn’t really answer the question — even if social media claimed he did.
Reporter: Much of the commentary world has decided and struck you as a genius Dan for the 12-man penalty and declared that it was intentional. Was it indeed intentional to induce the throw one-on-one to Jabbar [Muhammad] in that spot?
Lanning: It wasn’t one-on-one. We actually had a safety on top. So it’s called “dog.” He wasn’t in an extremely tight coverage. He was in dog coverage where you have a safety on top of him. Yeah, you know, there was a timeout before that. We spend an inordinate amount of time on situations. There are some situations that don’t show up very often in college football but this is one that obviously was something we had worked on. So you can see the result.
Is that a confirmation? When mentioning “situations,” is he talking about the penalty or the coverage?
If you listen or read carefully, that isn’t completely clear. Maybe he did. If so, good for Lanning.
Except here’s the thing: If Ohio State had gained more than 5 yards, then it could have declined the penalty and taken the play. Even better, the clock (at least temporarily) would have been stopped due to the penalty.
If the plan was to send extra defenders out to stop Ohio State from gaining yards, then why just 12? Why not more? Send 14 out there.
And why would the plan to stop Ohio State from gaining more than 5 yards include leaving Smith — perhaps the best receiver in the country — in essentially one-on-one coverage? By taking away the bunch formation on the right, Howard would almost assuredly have to go to Smith.
Sure, there was a safety to stop him from a huge gain or touchdown, but as Lanning noted, Muhammad wasn’t playing “extremely tight coverage.” If Smith catches that pass, he’s at the 30-yard line and that is if Muhammad or the safety makes an immediate tackle — no easy task against the 6-foot-3, 215-pound receiver. He probably gets close enough to put Ohio State in range to attempt a field goal from 40-47 yards.
Was a mastermind who figured out a rulebook trick and then employed it going to do it by setting up a play where Ohio State is essentially induced into throwing to its best weapon?
If so, why? Seems risky.
Or how about this: Why didn’t Lanning use the tactic when Ohio State was on its own 37-yard line with just 51 seconds remaining? That seems the ideal place to give up 5 or 10 or even 15 yards (if he employs the tactic more than once) in exchange for 15 or 20 seconds off the clock.
If Lanning knew about this loophole and planned on using it in such a big game, then he certainly would also have run the analytics and game situations to know where and when to best utilize it.
Not that he is required to answer, but what would those situations be?
Instead, Oregon played its usual defense and the Buckeyes drove all the way to Oregon’s 28-yard line with 28 seconds remaining. That was very close or within kicker Jayden Fielding’s range — his long this season is 40 yards but attempting a 45-yarder likely would have been reasonable.
Fortunately for the Ducks, two plays later, Smith was called for offensive pass interference and the Buckeyes were pushed all the way back to the 43-yard line.
And then there is one more question: If the plan worked on the second-to-last play, why not try it again on the next play? Put a bunch of defenders out there, snuff out whatever Ohio State was trying and take the 5 yards.
The clock would have either run out or down to a second or two, leaving no time for anything other than a Hail Mary or about a 48-yard field goal attempt (assuming another 5-yard penalty) — on the extreme edge of Fielding's range.
Are those better odds than allowing Ohio State to run a play which, had Howard slid just a second sooner and called timeout, would have given the Buckeyes a reasonable 45-yard or so game-winning field-goal attempt?
Not sure, but again, we’d love to hear the explanation.
In the end it all worked out great for Oregon. Regardless of what happened at the end, Lanning coached a great game and has built an astoundingly great program in Eugene.
And if he knew what he was doing, then he’s a genius. If he didn’t and is being coy in his answer to a question hailing him as a genius, hey, good for him.
To the victors, go the praise.
