Good experience

[slo8140]

Our third round game in Belton had zero clock issues. Probably the smoothest that both clocks have run all season. I think I had to reset it one time.

First time there. Very hospitable venue.

[DieHardCubFan]

Our crew had two clock officials from the Houston Chapter at our 3rd round game in Waller. The clock operation was very smooth (which makes a great argument for local officiating chapters and/or assigned crews bringing their own clock people).

[bama_stripes]

Our crew had two clock officials from the Houston Chapter at our 3rd round game in Waller. The clock operation was very smooth (which makes a great argument for local officiating chapters and/or assigned crews bringing their own clock people).

That’s the way we do it in our state.  ECO is part of the assigned crew, PCO comes from the local association that has the home team contract.

[ElvisLives]

We can debate assigned vs site-provided clock operators, or chain crew, or ball persons all day long. When it is all said and done, yet again, this is a UIL issue. The UIL does not dictate to the schools how to obtain or provide clock operators. They leave it to each site/school/district to determine how that is accomplished. Most sites/schools can find some staff members, school board members, retired teachers, etc., to 'volunteer' to operate the clocks. Free. Well, OK. Maybe a free trip to the concession stand. Anybody can do that. Right? Why pay somebody?
Before the 40-second play clock, this wasn't much of an issue. Operating either the game clock or the play clock was not exactly rocket science. Game clock: start in on the snap or signal; stop it on a T/O, score, or incomplete signal. (Still true today.) Play clock: Start it on the chop; stop/reset on the kick or snap.
But, today, operating the play clock requires knowledge and training, because the PCO needs to autonomously know when it is a 40 or a 25, and needs to pay close attention at all times, in case the R needs to reset the play clock, especially it that needs to be "on the fly." Injury. Helmet off. One hand 'pump,' or two hand 'pump.' So forth and so on. It has become a skill that requires training and practice.
Many of the folks that do it for free are doing it as a way to watch a child/grandchild play without having to buy a ticket. They ain't exactly motivated to be worried about doing correctly.
Many, if not most, TASO chapters simply do not have enough bodies to provide clock operators, even if the schools were willing to pay them. It still isn't exactly rocket science, but it ain't tiddlywinks, either.
The UIL needs to wake up and realize that the game deserves to have clock operators that are trained for it.

[AlUpstateNY]

At some point, serious consideration HAS to be given to the question, "Are these revised play clock requirements actually worth all the confusion, cost they're causing?"  Eliminating needless waste of time is a laudable goal, but simply reinforcing long existing game officials management controls could solve those issues with a lot less confusion.

A major problem has been improved/reduced by standardizing sideline ball retrieval practices, by establishing common sense protocols and practices sidelines (at any level) can readily comply with.  Similarly successful remedies are far more easily (and effectively) available for other persistent potentially delay issues by more consistent, and where necessary, stricter enforcement of long existing policies and procedures.

Major surgery is not always the appropriate, or necessary, path to simple adjustments. 

[dammitbobby]

We are never, ever going back to no play clocks.  Time to get on board with it.

[AlUpstateNY]

We are never, ever going back to no play clocks.  Time to get on board with it.

Great, perhaps you might detail the ESSENTIAL benefits NOT OTHERWISE available through innocuous means and/or basic management by game officials, currently readily available or through minor adjustment, by long existing practices.

[dammitbobby]

Well, it was wasn't my decision, so I don't have to defend it.  I do be believe it makes for more consistent game administration, and as much as no one really likes it, it puts the game in closer alignment with college level and above, with zero impact to safety, and I believe it makes the games faster.  As long as the PCO is halfway decent, everyone can see exactly how much time is left, on the field, the sidelines, and the stands, and it provides consistency.

Bottom line is it's not going away.  You can continue to be the lone holdout (you're the only one I've ever seen on here to still complain and not acknowledge that the game is evolving, as this is part of it), or you can accept that it's now an ingrained part of the game. 

[ElvisLives]

Great, perhaps you might detail the ESSENTIAL benefits NOT OTHERWISE available through innocuous means and/or basic management by game officials, currently readily available or through minor adjustment, by long existing practices.

The primary benefit  - and the purpose of the rule - is dramatically improved consistency in making the ball ready for play. Prior to the 40-second clock, it was up to the referee to determine the pace at which the ball would declared ready for play, after being made ready for play. Referees were directed by the NCAA - albeit informally - to declare the ball ready within 3 seconds of the ball being spotted. Many referees strived to follow that directive, but some consciously chose to ignore that directive, and would declare it ready whenever they thought it best to suit their self-interest (particularly to avoid the dreaded DOG), often allowing Team A to consume a lot of playing time by dragging their feet in getting subs into the game, etc.
The NCAA recognized this inconsistency, and took action to take this element out of the hands of the R, and provide the necessary consistency by rule.
This is the Texas site, and, particularly in Texas, in UIL contests, a lot of Rs would consciously be slow in declaring the ball ready, so as not to annoy the coaches (even though those coaches would take excessive amounts of time to send in plays), to avoid getting scratched. I know some Rs that would wait until Team A broke their huddle to declare the ball ready. (Why even have a play clock?)
Today, even with the 40-second clock rule, I see some similar actions by Rs. They'll arbitrarily pump the clock to 25 solely to avoid a DOG, even when Team A has dragged their feet in getting a play called. Especially after a kickoff. If the play clock is under 25 when we finally get the ball spotted, yeah, I'll will - and have - pumped it up. But, if we are able to meet our goal of getting the ball spotted by 32 on the play clock, then Team A simply has to choose a play, and move quickly enough to get the ball snapped before the play clock expires. In these instances, we are constantly reminding the team that the play clock is running. By and large, they get the ball snapped. Sometimes, they have to take a T/O. Once in a while they get a DOG. That's they way it works.

Personally, I prefer the 40/25 setup as we have it. We just need 1) visible play clocks, and 2) operators that are trained and competent. So, I don't want to go back to any 'old way.' We could NEVER achieve the same level of consistency via minor adjustments in previous play clock environments. Maybe in the NCAA, but never in Texas.

[AlUpstateNY]

Far be it for me to try and speak for Texas, but for the rest of the world, exact, minute precision of the "play clock" seemed somewhat, ''OVERBOARD', (like removing an arm to eliminate a cracked finger nail).  Yes there was some inconsistency, but often/usually that was related to specific situations in the game being played, and in most instances could be easily and quickly adjusted by tightening up existing protocols as necessary (for THAT particular game).

Considering the potential cost & difficulty (of retrofitting HS football fields, staffing consistent PC Operators) any semblance of widespread consistency seems a LOT further off than simply adjusting & enhancing practical enforcement improvement where it may be deemed necessary. 

[CosmoKramer]

Far be it for me to try and speak for Texas...

Please don't try.  You simply do not understand football in Texas. 

[dammitbobby]

There’s no requirement to retrofit fields. If a field doesn’t have a play clock, usually BJ keeps it with a ref smart timer or worst case, a watch. But PCs are preferred by everyone involved.

[JasonTX]

Great, perhaps you might detail the ESSENTIAL benefits NOT OTHERWISE available through innocuous means and/or basic management by game officials, currently readily available or through minor adjustment, by long existing practices.

For Varsity games, I have never been to a field that didn't have visible playclocks.  With that said, there have been may less than 5 games over 2 decades that I have worked where we had to keep the time on the field due to the playclock having operational issues.   Just a few benefits that I can think of.

1.  We have a lot of teams that use a slow pace and like to run the play clock down to as low as possible.  By having a PC they can see exactly how much time is left and snap it at the last second.

2.  The same can be said for teams wanting to call a timeout.  The coach will be standing next to the wing official and will let the clock run down to 1 second before calling a timeout.  Without a visible PC they wouldn't know when it hits 1 second.

3.  In NCAA when the ball is delayed getting spotted and the PC gets below 25, then we are to reset it to 25.  Without a visible PC we wouldn't know without having an actual watch that keeps it.  Most officials have the ReadyRef as a backup but it doesn't have a display to show the actual time.  It just vibrates when there are 10 seconds left on either the 40 or 25 timer.

4.  It's just one less task we have to keep up with on the field. 

[Etref]

Far be it for me to try and speak for Texas, but for the rest of the world, exact, minute precision of the "play clock" seemed somewhat, ''OVERBOARD', (like removing an arm to eliminate a cracked finger nail).  Yes there was some inconsistency, but often/usually that was related to specific situations in the game being played, and in most instances could be easily and quickly adjusted by tightening up existing protocols as necessary (for THAT particular game).

Considering the potential cost & difficulty (of retrofitting HS football fields, staffing consistent PC Operators) any semblance of widespread consistency seems a LOT further off than simply adjusting & enhancing practical enforcement improvement where it may be deemed necessary. 

Most of the retrofit costs were paid by sponsors or booster clubs

[KWH]

Far be it for me to try and speak for the rest of the world...

Please don't as you clearly don't understand the rest of the world either....

[AlUpstateNY]

For Varsity games, I have never been to a field that didn't have visible playclocks.  With that said, there have been may less than 5 games over 2 decades that I have worked where we had to keep the time on the field due to the playclock having operational issues.   Just a few benefits that I can think of.

1.  We have a lot of teams that use a slow pace and like to run the play clock down to as low as possible.  By having a PC they can see exactly how much time is left and snap it at the last second.

2.  The same can be said for teams wanting to call a timeout.  The coach will be standing next to the wing official and will let the clock run down to 1 second before calling a timeout.  Without a visible PC they wouldn't know when it hits 1 second.

3.  In NCAA when the ball is delayed getting spotted and the PC gets below 25, then we are to reset it to 25.  Without a visible PC we wouldn't know without having an actual watch that keeps it.  Most officials have the ReadyRef as a backup but it doesn't have a display to show the actual time.  It just vibrates when there are 10 seconds left on either the 40 or 25 timer.

4.  It's just one less task we have to keep up with on the field.

I guess you've been very lucky, some (perhaps many) States currently have few (if any) scoreboard Play clocks and rely on field official mechanics to avoid timing mishaps.

1. for those teams intent on using the full 25 second count, the manual 10/5 second signals by the BJ (or R) help eliminate such problems.

2.  Those coaches standing next to a wing official looking to take FULL advantage of a TO, usually advise the official of their intention, and the official is likely wearing a watch.

3.  When the RFP is declared with less than 25 seconds, a competent BJ (or R) would adjust his visual (10/5) signals to accommodate the shorter interval. Often the declining Game clock provides the same message.

4.  Timing intervals under the control of field officials REMAIN  their responsibility regardless of the availability of visible clocks, and provide additional flexibility to contend with, and avoid, potential problems.

A primary benefit of the 40/25 second play clock is reducing wasted time between 40 and 25 seconds. (Change of possession involving wholesale substitution, Incomplete passes & delayed ball retrieval, Interval following scores, unusual confusion, etc.) That interval is under the control of the R who can manage exceptions based on specific circumstances and conditions to avoid/minimize/control UNNECESARY/EXCESSIVE delays in declaring the 25 second RFP interval.

v. Lombardi suggested, "Perfection is NOT attainable, but if we chase perfection we can catch excellence.', which is likely the best we'll be happy to achieve.

[AlUpstateNY]

Please don't as you clearly don't understand the rest of the world either....

Hopefully, someday I may be as smart as those, who already know everything.  Thankfully, Im not counting on that.

[Etref]

Al
We did all of those things and when the 25/40 clock was first decided upon, I was against it because I was old school.

However, work a game or two with it and you fall in love with it! No griping from coaches about delay of game because they know it was not the officials running a quick count or too slow a count for the opponents, the visible play clocks help them plan, the officials find it much easier to work,so many benefits that can’t be measured.

[SCline]

You all got Aled

[Kalle]

I guess you've been very lucky, some (perhaps many) States currently have few (if any) scoreboard Play clocks and rely on field official mechanics to avoid timing mishaps.

Running a 25/40 PC is just as easy to run on the field as a 25 PC is, and you get all the same benefits as you do with a visible PC. Been there, done that, love it (most of my games are without a visible PC with 25/40, and I'm typically the BJ who is responsible for it). Try it sometime.

[psv]

I have had way more problems with Game Clocks over my officiating career than play clocks.... 

[CalhounLJ]

Running a 25/40 PC is just as easy to run on the field as a 25 PC is, and you get all the same benefits as you do with a visible PC. Been there, done that, love it (most of my games are without a visible PC with 25/40, and I'm typically the BJ who is responsible for it). Try it sometime.

Hands down the 25/40 has been the best rule change I’ve experienced in my 30+ years of officiating. Why we didn’t go to it sooner, I’ll never know. I am so glad I was wrong about it. I had the opportunity to run it twice in games this year without a visible play clock and both games were extremely smooth.  Also, the majority of teams in our area already had the capability on their scoreboard boxes to run it.  They just had to reprogram them. At minimal cost. Boosters and or sponsors took care of most. Plus, the coaches love it. Unanimously.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk