'12 NV OT Ronnie Stanley (Notre Dame Signed LOI)

[PANDFAN]

this is from 247• Frosh LT Ronnie Stanley, I believe, is still eligible for a fifth year in 2012 if he doesn't play the rest of the year (which is why he didn't see mop-up duty vs. Miami). The NCAA rules state 1) you can't have played in more than two of the first six games (Stanley hasn't) and 2) you can't have played in more than 20 percent for the season. If Stanley doesn't play again, the 2 games he will have played out of 12 is only 16.7 percent.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

this is from 247• Frosh LT Ronnie Stanley, I believe, is still eligible for a fifth year in 2012 if he doesn't play the rest of the year (which is why he didn't see mop-up duty vs. Miami). The NCAA rules state 1) you can't have played in more than two of the first six games (Stanley hasn't) and 2) you can't have played in more than 20 percent for the season. If Stanley doesn't play again, the 2 games he will have played out of 12 is only 16.7 percent.

Which is why he didn't play against Miami during mop up time.

 

[NYMIKE6]

this is from 247• Frosh LT Ronnie Stanley, I believe, is still eligible for a fifth year in 2012 if he doesn't play the rest of the year (which is why he didn't see mop-up duty vs. Miami). The NCAA rules state 1) you can't have played in more than two of the first six games (Stanley hasn't) and 2) you can't have played in more than 20 percent for the season. If Stanley doesn't play again, the 2 games he will have played out of 12 is only 16.7 percent.

This is what i've been saying...

 

[PANDFAN]

this is from 247• Frosh LT Ronnie Stanley, I believe, is still eligible for a fifth year in 2012 if he doesn't play the rest of the year (which is why he didn't see mop-up duty vs. Miami). The NCAA rules state 1) you can't have played in more than two of the first six games (Stanley hasn't) and 2) you can't have played in more than 20 percent for the season. If Stanley doesn't play again, the 2 games he will have played out of 12 is only 16.7 percent.

Which is why he didn't play against Miami during mop up time.

 

[Emcee77]

This totally makes sense: it explains why Kelly and Diaco don't settle on who will redshirt until after game 6, as Kelly said at a presser earlier this year.

It all makes you wonder how the one play, one season myth got started though. That was received Gospel as far as I was concerned ... I'm not the only one, am I? I feel like we've talked about it numerous times on this board and always concluded that if you are healthy, one play is enough to burn a redshirt. Pleased that the actual rule isn't that rigid.

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

...which is why I didn't see action against Miami.

 

[Domina Nostra]

...which is why I didn't see action against Miami.

Are you all sure you are not just repeating the hardship waiver rule? I am pretty sure one game burns your eligibility without as injury or illness.

Stanley may not be getting playing time because they need the starters and key back-ups to gel. Are we even sure he is still the second string tackle?

 

[Emcee77]

Are you all sure you are not just repeating the hardship waiver rule? I am pretty sure one game burns your eligibility without as injury or illness.

Stanley may not be getting playing time because they need the starters and key back-ups to gel. Are we even sure he is still the second string tackle?

DN, scroll up. That is exactly what I thought at first, but Lou Somogyi of 247 says this is the rule in non-injury contexts (not sure if you are a 247 subscriber but he is very knowledgeable and generally reliable), and in his pressers BK has made at least two references to the rule in non-injury contexts, plus there is the story from the Louisville player, IrishLion's friend, so based on all that I'm convinced its the correct rule ... but if anyone can find the actual text of the NCAA rule on this I'd appreciate it. I tried but couldn't find it myself.

 

[Domina Nostra]

DN, scroll up. That is exactly what I thought at first, but Lou Somogyi of 247 says this is the rule in non-injury contexts (not sure if you are a 247 subscriber but he is very knowledgeable and generally reliable), and in his pressers BK has made at least two references to the rule in non-injury contexts, plus there is the story from the Louisville player, so based on all that I'm convinced its the correct rule ... but if anyone can find the actual text of the NCAA rule on this I'd appreciate it. I tried but couldn't find it myself.

I scrolled up before, but couldn't find any language that wasn't nearly identical to the hardship waiver language. I'll take your word for it that Somogyi knows what he is talking about, but it seems strange that you could automatically play a freshman in 2 out of the first 6 games and still red-shirt him. It also seems strange that the first part of the rule includes a "two game" rule even though the second part of the rule says 20% which consumes it (since .2 x 13 = 2.6).

I wonder if it is a supposed revision to the older rule?

I thought the reason Coach Kelly kept talking about game 6 is because there is no hardship waiver after game 6, but it did seem odd.

BTW, thanks for the non-sarcastic reply!

 

[Emcee77]

I scrolled up before, but couldn't find any language that wasn't identical to the hardship waiver language. I'll take your word for it that Somogyi knows what he is talking about, but it seems strange that you could automatically play a freshman in 2 out of the first 6 games and still red-shirt him. I wonder if it is a revision to the older rule?

BTW, thanks for the non-sarcastic reply!

Lol, no problem ... I'd be an awful prick if I gave you attitude for raising the same question I did! Actually mine was worse; I had the nerve to just correct NYMike outright.

Honestly, I'm not 100% convinced myself, but Lou Somogyi, Brian Kelly and IrishLion's friend can't all be wrong, can they?

 

[PANDFAN]

Are you all sure you are not just repeating the hardship waiver rule? I am pretty sure one game burns your eligibility without as injury or illness.

Stanley may not be getting playing time because they need the starters and key back-ups to gel. Are we even sure he is still the second string tackle?

DN, scroll up. That is exactly what I thought at first, but Lou Somogyi of 247 says this is the rule in non-injury contexts (not sure if you are a 247 subscriber but he is very knowledgeable and generally reliable), and in his pressers BK has made at least two references to the rule in non-injury contexts, plus there is the story from the Louisville player, IrishLion's friend, so based on all that I'm convinced its the correct rule ... but if anyone can find the actual text of the NCAA rule on this I'd appreciate it. I tried but couldn't find it myself.

you are eligible to redshirt if you don't play in a game. You can also redshirt if you play in game provided all three of these conditions are met (1) you played in fewer than three games (actually the rule says 20 percent of the schedule, which is three games in a 12-game season) and (2) you did not play in any game that fell after the midway point in the season (sixth game) and (3) you suffered a season-ending injury.

 

[Emcee77]

Jesus Panda just when we thought we had it figured out ... so Lou, Kelly and IrishLion are all confusing the hardship rule with the regular redshirt rule?! Where are you getting this info?

 

[PANDFAN]

Jesus Panda just when we thought we had it figured out ... so Lou, Kelly and IrishLion are all confusing the hardship rule with the regular redshirt rule?! Where are you getting this info?

Pitt football Q&A with Paul Zeise - Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

 

[Domina Nostra]

Jesus Panda just when we thought we had it figured out ... so Lou, Kelly and IrishLion are all confusing the hardship rule with the regular redshirt rule?! Where are you getting this info?

Pan did not discover anything that was not universally accepted before the last few hours!

 

[Emcee77]

lol ... I'm going to ask Lou directly and cite Panda's source ... don't know if he'll be able to clear this up though ...

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

BK said in his presser today that he would have Brian Hardin send out something to the media in regards to the rules. We should know soon enough. And for the record he didn't say anything about needing an injury prior to the 6th game.

 

[PANDFAN]

BK said in his presser today that he would have Brian Hardin send out something to the media in regards to the rules. We should know soon enough. And for the record he didn't say anything about needing an injury prior to the 6th game.

awesome!

i also found this ncaa rules and guidlines

The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition. Each student is allowed no more than four seasons of competition per sport. If you were not a qualifier, you may have fewer seasons of competition available to you.



Any competition, regardless of time, during a season counts as one of your seasons of

competition in that sport. It does not matter how long you were involved in a particular

competition (for example, one play in a football game, one point in a volleyball match); you will be charged with one season of competition.

http://www.ncaa.org/wps/ncaa?ContentID=447
^ this link however doesn't come up for me

 

[TheSunIsRising]

Would be interesting to see what Brian Hardin sends out; the following is from the NCAA operating and administrative bylaws (see link):

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D112.pdf

Bylaw 14.2 is the one that covers the 5 year rule (see page 152; there is a hotlink in menu); under 14.2.3.1, which covers determining participation (page 154), it states:

14.2.3 Criteria for Determining Season of Competition.
14.2.3.1 Minimum Amount of Competition. Any competition, regardless of time, during a season in an intercollegiate sport shall be counted as a season of competition in that sport, except as provided in Bylaws
14.2.3.1.1, 14.2.3.1.2, 14.2.3.1.3 and 14.2.3.1.4. This provision is applicable to intercollegiate athletics competition conducted by a two-year or four-year collegiate institution at the varsity or subvarsity level. (Revised:
1/11/94, 4/28/05 effective 8/1/05, 5/9/06, 1/16/10 effective 8/1/10)

Here are each of those stated Bylaws (just the subject titles):

14.2.3.1.1 Two-Year College Scrimmages
14.2.3.1.2 Women’s Volleyball, Men’s Soccer, Women’s Soccer, Field Hockey, Men’s Water
Polo
14.2.3.1.3 Preseason Exhibitions/Preseason Practice Scrimmages During Initial Year
14.2.3.1.4 Alumni Game, Fundraising Activity or Celebrity Sports Activity

None of the above apply to this siutation.

Section 14.2.4 (p 157) talks about the Hardship Waiver, and indicates that injury is required

Interestingly, section 14.2.6 (p. 160) talks about Season of Competition Waivers, but requires that the coaching staff had a misunderstanding of the eligibility requirements (which must be documented); not sure how they would document or argue this.


There may be some other loopholes (kind of how Amir Carlisle was able to transfer without being required to miss a year), but having read through most of Bylaw 14.2 (and skimming the rest), not sure how they would justify this not being a year of competition

[PANDFAN had posted some of this while I was writing]

 

[GoldenIsThyFame]

It is looking more and more like Lou was wrong...

 

[Emcee77]

Yep, I took a quick look at the rulebook, and I didn't find anything different from what SunIsRising found. I think our original understanding of the rule -- even one play is enough to blow a redshirt year unless you suffer a season-ending injury -- was correct.

I'm less concerned about Lou being wrong than about Kelly being wrong ... he seems to have inadvertently cost Stanley a year of eligibility.

Hopefully Hardin will be able to show us what we are missing.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I'm less concerned about Lou being wrong than about Kelly being wrong ... he seems to have inadvertently cost Stanley a year of eligibility.

LOL! Lets not go down that road. I can guarantee you, no matter what we hear, Kelly is and was well aware of the redshirt rule. He has been a coach for 20+ years.

Kelly played those kids early to make sure that we had needed depth, pure and simple.

 

[Old Man Mike]

I have a theory which ignores what may or may not have been said or understood by anyone, but might address why Coach would play Ronnie:

1]. if there is a choice between winning a game this year and winning one next year, Kelly picks this year every time;
2]. because of the surprises of O-Line attrition pre-season [particularly Prestwood] Kelly has been considering the need to have Ronnie play for several weeks;
3]. although Hegarty is the clear back-up center, there is no clear back-up anywhere else. Nichols continues to worry the staff as to durability. NMartin seems the only clear hope at back-up guard. Ronnie seems to nearly stand alone as a viable talented back-up tackle candidate;
4]. five young studs of extreme talents join the O-Line brigade next year. We will have 9 [I believe] veterans available to keep their redshirts on, but [with Heggie as the 10th] will also be able to use them as an entire scout team unit. This means by the time that Ronnie is a junior, the newbie supermen will be just freshmen eligibility-wise, but ready to contribute. When Ronnie graduates, they will just have been sophomores becoming juniors.

Kelly, analyzing everything with long vision, thinks: we could EASILY need Ronnie sometime this year, but with the stud recruits might not need that extra year. Plus, he already has a man's body, and if Harry can coach him up, he could play now.

Result: Kelly had a plan going in, and pulled the trigger fast when an occasion arose.

So why not Miami mop-up?? Theory: a}.Ronnie's showed them that he's ready if needed. Or, Ronnie had a Ding. b}.Kelly's not a charity. c}.The O-Line seemed to be doing better, but some of the pull-across-the-face-of-the-defense stuff still wasn't perfectly coordinated. Let the Five-Fingers-of-Doom stay intact longer and get playing the same tune on the faces of the opponents' piano.

 

[Domina Nostra]

I have a theory which ignores what may or may not have been said or understood by anyone, but might address why Coach would play Ronnie:

1]. if there is a choice between winning a game this year and winning one next year, Kelly picks this year every time;
2]. because of the surprises of O-Line attrition pre-season [particularly Prestwood] Kelly has been considering the need to have Ronnie play for several weeks;
3]. although Hegarty is the clear back-up center, there is no clear back-up anywhere else. Nichols continues to worry the staff as to durability. NMartin seems the only clear hope at back-up guard. Ronnie seems to nearly stand alone as a viable talented back-up tackle candidate;
4]. five young studs of extreme talents join the O-Line brigade next year. We will have 9 [I believe] veterans available to keep their redshirts on, but [with Heggie as the 10th] will also be able to use them as an entire scout team unit. This means by the time that Ronnie is a junior, the newbie supermen will be just freshmen eligibility-wise, but ready to contribute. When Ronnie graduates, they will just have been sophomores becoming juniors.

Kelly, analyzing everything with long vision, thinks: we could EASILY need Ronnie sometime this year, but with the stud recruits might not need that extra year. Plus, he already has a man's body, and if Harry can coach him up, he could play now.

Result: Kelly had a plan going in, and pulled the trigger fast when an occasion arose.

So why not Miami mop-up?? Theory: a}.Ronnie's showed them that he's ready if needed. Or, Ronnie had a Ding. b}.Kelly's not a charity. c}.The O-Line seemed to be doing better, but some of the pull-across-the-face-of-the-defense stuff still wasn't perfectly coordinated. Let the Five-Fingers-of-Doom stay intact longer and get playing the same tune on the faces of the opponents' piano.

That is my opinion exactly. Thanks for taking the time to write it out!

 

[Emcee77]

LOL! Lets not go down that road. I can guarantee you, no matter what we hear, Kelly is and was well aware of the redshirt rule. He has been a coach for 20+ years.

Kelly played those kids early to make sure that we had needed depth, pure and simple.

Well, I hope so, but I don't know how you can be so sure. Check out what he says at the 14:25 or 14:30 mark here:

Coach Kelly Press Conference - Stanford Week - Oct. 9, 2012 - YouTube

and here at about the 9:40 mark (as posted by NDinFL previously):

Coach Kelly Media Session - Oct. 4, 2012 - Notre Dame Football - YouTube

It's clear that Kelly thinks the rule is the less-than-20%-in-the-first-6-games thing. It may turn out that he is correct and that we are the ones missing something. In today's press conference Kelly expressed complete confidence in Brian Hardin's command of the rules, and presumably Hardin would have told Kelly if the rule was different. But those of us who have looked at the 2012 rulebook don't see what he's talking about, so I don't know ...

Now, I get what OMM is saying: even if Kelly had fully understood that he was burning a year of eligibility, he might have proceeded to do so, and for good reason, given our sudden lack of depth at tackle, and that's completely plausible. But it looks to me like Kelly did not understand the rule correctly, so he did burn Stanley's redshirt inadvertently. Not the end of the world in Stanley's case, because we are better off with him getting quality work this season, but still a significant oversight that could have been problematic if he had gone and played some other freshmen against Navy.

 

[NYMIKE6]

Geez, look what i started... Apology accepted Emcee...

 

[NDdomer2]

I will wait to hear what the release says from Hardin. I highly doubt we didn't inquire the ncaa before season started to be sure going into navy game.

 

[BGIF]

awesome!

i also found this ncaa rules and guidlines

...

Any competition, regardless of time, during a season counts as one of your seasons of

competition in that sport. It does not matter how long you were involved in a particular

competition (for example, one play in a football game, one point in a volleyball match); you will be charged with one season of competition.

...

Would be interesting to see what Brian Hardin sends out; the following is from the NCAA operating and administrative bylaws (see link):

http://www.ncaapublications.com/productdownloads/D112.pdf

...

We've had several discussion over the years here on this topic. I've posted the rule(s) in the past as I think they changed since the Holtz days (Kelly's early career). My recollection was the old rule had a formula on plays in a percentage of a teams seasons games and that it later changed to if you play a down in a game it burns a year. I don't know if there's been a more recent change.

I didn't look it up. Kudos to Sun and Panda for taking the time and sharing.

I don't think this is Brian Hardin's responsibility. Every coach on the team should know the rule so a position coach or coordinator doesn't put a player in a game and burn a year.

 

[PANDFAN]

Also if you remember last year when tuitt was left behind cuz of waking up late it forced kona to "burn his redshirt" as BK said in a presser....I was kind of at a loss when I heard this as he played as a freshman but would further support the argument of 1 play year burned

 

[NDdomer2]

That was after game 6 no? so it wouldn't matter if it was the other rule either.

 

[TheSunIsRising]

That was after game 6 no? so it wouldn't matter if it was the other rule either.

No, Purdue was game 5 and Kona's first participation in 2011. This actually further supports the Bylaws as quoted earlier; otherwise Kona's 2nd year of eligibility wouldn't have been sacrificed.