Injury Timeout Discussion

[Clear Lake ref]

Obviously was handled correctly in the game.

But is the intent of the rule an issue here?

Suggested fix:

If offensive injury occurs, defense has right to zap 10 and run. If they decline, offense has right to resume clock and play clock as is. Is it perfect? No. But nothing is.

Would work the other way as well so that offense isn’t getting free time either for an injury.

[ilyazhito]

Yes. Only in the NFL is zap-10 limited to offensive infractions and injuries (Rule 4, Section 5, Article 4, Supplemental Note 5). In NCAA, either team can accept or decline the option for a 10-second runoff.

[ump_ben]

We discussed this in the chat room and the consensus there was the rule needs fixing.  I like your approach, but in the rare case of an injury late in the play clock it could be a bit of a problem.  It's a bit complicated to completely nullify the effect of the injury timeout but in our day and age I think we could handle it.  So here's a modification of your proposal.  In the event of an injury timeout to the defense while the offense wants the clock to run or to the offense while the defense wants the clock to stop, the play clock is stopped and the game clock is stopped.  If there's more than 25 on the play clock, the game clock and the play clock starts on the ready.  If there's less than 25, the play clock is reset to 25 and starts on the ready and the game clock starts when the play clock hits where we stopped it.  (Thus the injury timeout provides exactly no advantage).

[Imperial Stout]

I’d guess another option for the “offense has no desire to conserve time” scenario is restore the game clock by the amount of time run off the play clock at the point of the injury stoppage.  Reset play clock to 40 and start at the ready.  It all ends up in the same place.

[AlUpstateNY]

We discussed this in the chat room and the consensus there was the rule needs fixing.  I like your approach, but in the rare case of an injury late in the play clock it could be a bit of a problem.  It's a bit complicated to completely nullify the effect of the injury timeout but in our day and age I think we could handle it.  So here's a modification of your proposal.  In the event of an injury timeout to the defense while the offense wants the clock to run or to the offense while the defense wants the clock to stop, the play clock is stopped and the game clock is stopped.  If there's more than 25 on the play clock, the game clock and the play clock starts on the ready.  If there's less than 25, the play clock is reset to 25 and starts on the ready and the game clock starts when the play clock hits where we stopped it.  (Thus the injury timeout provides exactly no advantage).

the ONLY absolutely necessary commodity necessary to continue a football game is an equal number of "fit" players, on each team.  When a player gets hurt (unintentionally) protecting that injured player trumps ALL ELSE. Even for "intentional" injuries (there are specific remedies).  After attending, and where necessary removing, an injured player (the game) can continue.  For a Billion years, the decision, when conditions were appropriate for the game to continue, a single, visible source (The Head Game Official) would alert EVERYONE when that occurred.

The standard RFP interval began, for both teams and the game continued, as if the injury hadn't interrupted things.   Something BOTH teams should be extremely familiar, and prepared with, on a consistent basis,  "When it ain't broke, don't fix it" still works, most often far better than nitpicking.

[Clear Lake ref]

I’d say this is broke. An injury shouldn’t allow for an advantage like this.

[Joe Stack]

What is the rule reference to the current rule?

[Imperial Stout]

3-3-5-f is the reference.

[AlUpstateNY]

I’d say this is broke. An injury shouldn’t allow for an advantage like this.

What "Advantage"? someone got hurt. in the 1/100,000,000 chance it was such an obvious farce to deliberately interrupt/influence play, God gave us UNS Conduct as a remedy.  Otherwise focus is (and should be on the injury) and it's immediate impact on play.  Until/unless there is potential for such impact (even slightly) play away from the injury would likely continue. THEN everything stops to attend to the injured. 

When the injury has been completely attended to and it's impact completely removed from the playing field.  The Referee signals (a standard) RFP, and play continues from wherever/however the previous spot ended.  Hopefully, there will NEVER be any "planned advantage", to either team associated with a player injury.  Like everything else, even/especially on a football field, "STUFF happens".

[ump_ben]

Al, did you watch the game?  That may be where our disconnect is.  On the assumption that you didn't, here was the situation.  The injury was not faked to get an advantage, the defense got a HUGE advantage from a very real offensive injury.  The situation was: no timeouts left, UW runner tackled short of the LTG on 3rd down with 55 seconds left an UW up six points.  At 47 seconds, the clock was stopped for an injury timeout.  For reasons I don't understand they decided to put 3 seconds back on the clock (I'm guessing they decided somebody was signaling for the injury timeout earlier.)  At the time of the clock stoppage there were 33 seconds on the play clock.  After the player was taken care of there were 25 seconds on the play clock and the RFP was given.  Texas declined the 10 second runoff so the clock did not run on the ready.  As a result instead of fair catching the punt with about 10 seconds left, they fair caught it with ~45 seconds left.  That is a big advantage from the injury.

[ElvisLives]

Al, did you watch the game?  That may be where our disconnect is.  On the assumption that you didn't, here was the situation.  The injury was not faked to get an advantage, the defense got a HUGE advantage from a very real offensive injury.  The situation was: no timeouts left, UW runner tackled short of the LTG on 3rd down with 55 seconds left an UW up six points.  At 47 seconds, the clock was stopped for an injury timeout.  For reasons I don't understand they decided to put 3 seconds back on the clock (I'm guessing they decided somebody was signaling for the injury timeout earlier.)  At the time of the clock stoppage there were 33 seconds on the play clock.  After the player was taken care of there were 25 seconds on the play clock and the RFP was given.  Texas declined the 10 second runoff so the clock did not run on the ready.  As a result instead of fair catching the punt with about 10 seconds left, they fair caught it with ~45 seconds left.  That is a big advantage from the injury.

The concept of advantage applies to the team for whom the clock was stopped. In this case, it was stopped for the offense, who was ahead in score. No advantage gained by them for something they did. The opponent (defense) got the benefit of the rule, i.e., the game clock starts on the snap, because they didn’t cause the interruption.
OK, the rules are as they are to prevent fake injuries, which, despite what Al thinks, have happened, and are still happening, on a regular basis. Way more than 1/100,000,000. Officials, even the tiny fractional percentage of officials that are physicians, are not expected to make any determination as to the validity of an apparent injury to a player. (Yeah, I realize that the Hippocratic oath and statutory laws may actually require a licensed physician to assist an injured or sick person, if there is no other qualified medical help available, regardless of any other capacity in which the physician is on the scene. But, I can tell a fake injury from a real one, so an actual physician can certainly do so, as well. And fake injuries are what the 10 second subtraction and clock rules are intended to discourage.) The teams are expected to have appropriate medical staff on hand to handle any potential medical crisis. So, even licensed physician officials should not be expected to become involved in any player injury (short of some sort of imminent life-threatening condition). The fact that the defense - behind in score - was able to get the benefit of having the game clock start on the snap is unusual (if not rare). But, short of the NCAA assigning disinterested physicians to monitor all apparent injuries, and then notify the Referee if the injury was fake or real, this rule is about as good as we can get, considering that not all games played by NCAA rules have replay, or reliable ways to set the game and play clocks to “time remaining” when some event happened.
The rule isn’t perfect, but the few instances when the opponent gets the benefit of an injury don’t warrant changing the rule.

[Imperial Stout]

In this case, the offense wants to run the clock, not stop the clock, so there really isn't any incentive to fake an injury.

The way the rule is implemented now, its overly punitive in the case of where the offense wants to run the clock. It costs that team 25 seconds with the game clock starting on the snap.  That is on top of what they already cost themselves depending on where the 40 second play clock stopped. In the case where the offense is behind, and has the incentive to conserve time and thus far more likely to fake an injury, the penalty is a 10 second runoff.  It punishes the team that has far less incentive to fake an injury far more harshly.

I still think this can be tweaked to better balance things out and add some common sense to how this situation is handled.

[ElvisLives]

In this case, the offense wants to run the clock, not stop the clock, so there really isn't any incentive to fake an injury.

The way the rule is implemented now, its overly punitive in the case of where the offense wants to run the clock. It costs that team 25 seconds with the game clock starting on the snap.  That is on top of what they already cost themselves depending on where the 40 second play clock stopped. In the case where the offense is behind, and has the incentive to conserve time and thus far more likely to fake an injury, the penalty is a 10 second runoff.  It punishes the team that has far less incentive to fake an injury far more harshly.

I still think this can be tweaked to better balance things out and add some common sense to how this situation is handled.

Personally, I don't want the rule 'tweaked,' or changed at all. Like I said, the rule is intended to discourage fake injuries, which is a situation that dishonest coaches/teams have brought upon themselves. So, don't complex the rule any more than it is. In those few circumstances when the team with the injury is ahead in score, that's just the breaks, if the clock starts on the snap. Be good enough to run out the clock, or keep the offense inbounds, etc. 

[AlUpstateNY]

The concept of advantage applies to the team for whom the clock was stopped. In this case, it was stopped for the offense, who was ahead in score. No advantage gained by them for something they did. The opponent (defense) got the benefit of the rule, i.e., the game clock starts on the snap, because they didn’t cause the interruption.
OK, the rules are as they are to prevent fake injuries, which, despite what Al thinks, have happened, and are still happening, on a regular basis. Way more than 1/100,000,000. Officials, even the tiny fractional percentage of officials that are physicians, are not expected to make any determination as to the validity of an apparent injury to a player. (Yeah, I realize that the Hippocratic oath and statutory laws may actually require a licensed physician to assist an injured or sick person, if there is no other qualified medical help available, regardless of any other capacity in which the physician is on the scene. But, I can tell a fake injury from a real one, so an actual physician can certainly do so, as well. And fake injuries are what the 10 second subtraction and clock rules are intended to discourage.) The teams are expected to have appropriate medical staff on hand to handle any potential medical crisis. So, even licensed physician officials should not be expected to become involved in any player injury (short of some sort of imminent life-threatening condition). The fact that the defense - behind in score - was able to get the benefit of having the game clock start on the snap is unusual (if not rare). But, short of the NCAA assigning disinterested physicians to monitor all apparent injuries, and then notify the Referee if the injury was fake or real, this rule is about as good as we can get, considering that not all games played by NCAA rules have replay, or reliable ways to set the game and play clocks to “time remaining” when some event happened.
The rule isn’t perfect, but the few instances when the opponent gets the benefit of an injury don’t warrant changing the rule.

I agree, this rule, like many others falls far short of perfect.  Designing an adjustment that inherently presumes some level of despicable (unverified) intent, automatically applied to either team, doesn't seem much of an improvement.  Unfortunately, injuries happen.  As you suggest, careful replay should be able to determine when the injury stopped the play (for the benefit & safety of a player).  Removing the injured player and restarting play at the precise moment and spot of the stoppage, and repeating the down, beginning with the new snap seems far better than even a suggestion of reprehensible coaching behavior.

If that's a legitimate concern, an NCAA tribunal should thoroughly investigate, after the fact, and if a Coach was judged "Guilty" appy some gruesome penalty (ie lifetime banning, etc.) rather than speculate and/or continue tweaking this rule.

[dammitbobby]

Of all the (really, really, really few) things a coach could do to get a 'lifetime ban'...

telling a kid to flop isn't even in the galaxy of where a lifetime ban - or even a suspension of any amount of time - would EVER be considered reasonable.

[SCline]

Seems like a simple answer is available. If the injury timeout occurs with 25 or more seconds remaining on the play clock, then the play clock should be set to 25 and the game clock starts on the ready. If the injury timeout occurs with less than 25 seconds on the play clock, set the play clock to 25 seconds and the game clock starts on the snap.

No figuring out time remaining or anything like that.

[AlUpstateNY]

Of all the (really, really, really few) things a coach could do to get a 'lifetime ban'...

telling a kid to flop isn't even in the galaxy of where a lifetime ban - or even a suspension of any amount of time - would EVER be considered reasonable.

Never suggested "reasonable", but no less so than micro-managing applying gift seconds to either team on a "guess or by-golly basis".  As suggested, simply figuring out the exact instance when the clock was stopped because of the injury (via replay), waiting to when the field was subsequently cleared, the R announcing to both teams standard 25 second RTP on his signal, resetting the clock and when HE felt everything was set, signal.

However, it seems unfair to allow a tiny percentage of, really, ill behaved individuals, to cast a dark shadow over a vast majority of honest Coaches.  Sometimes, just the spector of heavy consequences, by itself, eliminates a lot of ill-advised temptation.

[ump_ben]

Personally, I don't want the rule 'tweaked,' or changed at all. Like I said, the rule is intended to discourage fake injuries, which is a situation that dishonest coaches/teams have brought upon themselves. So, don't complex the rule any more than it is. In those few circumstances when the team with the injury is ahead in score, that's just the breaks, if the clock starts on the snap. Be good enough to run out the clock, or keep the offense inbounds, etc.

I've never really seen the rule as designed to stop fake injuries.  I thought the point of it was to try to neutralize the impact of injuries on the game.  Insofar as we want to make being injured a thing that's bad for your chances of winning that will discourage fake injuries and I guess if that's the tradeoff we have to make, we have to make it.  But I'm unconvinced that we can't just avoid having it impact the game at all in at least situations like this.

But the other part of this argument is to me a problem.  If Texas had converted on 4th down, they'd be in the National Championship.  Which means at a gross oversimplification that WA was in the Sugar Bowl -- in spite of the injury disadvantage -- just barely better than Texas.  Had Texas converted though, we'd say that WA was better but not enough better to overcome the disadvantage.  To say, in that situation, well you should have tried just being a lot better than a team heading to the national championship instead of a little better seems vastly inferior than to say, we can tweak the rules to not put you at a disadvantage.

[ElvisLives]

I've never really seen the rule as designed to stop fake injuries.  I thought the point of it was to try to neutralize the impact of injuries on the game.  Insofar as we want to make being injured a thing that's bad for your chances of winning that will discourage fake injuries and I guess if that's the tradeoff we have to make, we have to make it.  But I'm unconvinced that we can't just avoid having it impact the game at all in at least situations like this.

But the other part of this argument is to me a problem.  If Texas had converted on 4th down, they'd be in the National Championship.  Which means at a gross oversimplification that WA was in the Sugar Bowl -- in spite of the injury disadvantage -- just barely better than Texas.  Had Texas converted though, we'd say that WA was better but not enough better to overcome the disadvantage.  To say, in that situation, well you should have tried just being a lot better than a team heading to the national championship instead of a little better seems vastly inferior than to say, we can tweak the rules to not put you at a disadvantage.

Who got put at a disadvantage? Texas was on defense, and they were behind in the score. They had expended their times-out. The BC failed to make the line-to-gain, and was inbounds. The game clock continued to run, until an injury to an offensive player was recognized. The game clock was stopped. Since there was no other reason for the game clock to stop with less than one minute remaining in the 4th period, the option to subtract 10 seconds from the game clock was offered to Texas, and was, quite understandably, declined. Outside one minute, the game clock would have started on the Referee's signal, and the defense (Texas) would not have been able to prevent that. But, by special rule related to injuries inside one minute in the 2nd/4th periods, the game clock was started on the snap (with the declined 10SS). If anybody was put at a disadvantage, it was the offense, however slight that disadvantage was. This may have been a legitimate injury (I believe it was, especially since the offense, ahead in score, really had no motivation to stop the game clock). But, to mitigate a possible advantage for a team that would fake an injury in such circumstances, the 10SS and starting the game clock on the Referee's signal were put in place in 2013 (as well as the option to decline the 10SS, and start the game clock on the snap, which is what an offended team behind in score would almost always want). (Yes, the rules were changed SPECIFICALLY to address fake injuries.) OK, so Washington missed the opportunity to exhaust about 38 seconds of game clock, because of the injury to their player. That may not sound fair - and it may not BE fair. But, the teams and the coaches can only point the fingers at themselves and/or their unscrupulous colleagues that have, and will, cheat by faking injuries to gain clock advantage.
In this case, Washington screwed themselves by 1) committing an illegal snap in the next RFP period, and then by committing KCI on the subsequent punt play. But, they were able to play well enough to prevent Texas from scoring, and/or Texas did not play well enough to score, and time ran out. Washington goes to the NCG.
Nothing wrong with the rule as it is. 

[ElvisLives]

Below is excerpted from a news article in 2013. The third item is of prime interest. The commentary within the wording makes the reason for the rule change very clear.
-----------------
Rule changes
The following rule changes were made by the NCAA Football Rules Committee for the 2013 season:[1]

Players who intentionally deliver a blow above the shoulders of a defenseless player (targeting) will now be automatically ejected from the game in addition to the 15-yard penalty assessed. If the ejection occurs in the first half, it is for the remainder of the game. If the ejection occurs in the second half or in overtime, it is for the remainder of the game plus the first half of the next scheduled game. The ejection penalty is automatically reviewed to determine if the hit was intentional; however, the yardage penalty is not reviewable (this rule was later changed for the 2014 season to overturn the yardage penalty if the ejection was overturned).[2]

Blocking below the waist is now legal if done from the front side of the defender anywhere on the field, while blocks below the waist delivered from the side or back are fouls, simplifying rule changes from the 2011 and 2012 seasons.

In the final minute of each half, if the clock is stopped solely for an injured player, there will be an option for a 10-second runoff before the ball is put in play to cut down on teams faking injuries to stop the clock. If the clock is stopped for another reason (first down, incomplete pass, etc.) or if players from both teams are injured on the same play no runoff will occur.

If the clock is stopped and will restart on the referee's signal with three or more seconds remaining in a half, the ball can be spiked to get an additional play. If one or two seconds remain on the game clock when the ball is spiked, the half or game will end.

Permitting the use of electronic equipment such as wireless headsets for game officials to communicate with each other.

Two players at the same position on the same team may not wear the same uniform number (example, two quarterbacks on the same team cannot wear No. 12).

Players that change numbers during a game must report to the referee, who will announce it via wireless microphone. Failure to report is a 15-yard unsportsmanlike conduct penalty.

Instant replay will be permitted to adjust the game clock at the end of each quarter. Previously, instant replay could only adjust the game clock at the end of each half.

Permitting the Big 12 Conference to experiment with an eighth official during conference games, positioned in the offensive backfield opposite the Referee (similar to the positioning of the umpire in the NFL) to assist in detecting infractions (such as holding, chop blocks, blindside hits on the quarterback, etc.) on the offensive line as well as spotting the ball and monitoring substitutions. This official will be referred to as an "alternate referee" and wear an "A" on the back of the uniform. Use of eight-man officiating crews was expanded to all FBS conferences in the 2014 season.[3]

[ump_ben]

Who got put at a disadvantage?

Washington, by being injured.

(Yes, the rules were changed SPECIFICALLY to address fake injuries.) OK, so Washington missed the opportunity to exhaust about 38 seconds of game clock, because of the injury to their player. That may not sound fair - and it may not BE fair. But, the teams and the coaches can only point the fingers at themselves and/or their unscrupulous colleagues that have, and will, cheat by faking

(Thanks for that citation below, I did not remember that as the reason.)  I think the rules should be made more fair whenever possible.  And that's enough incentive for me to be on the fix it bandwagon, and the claim that if coaches were more honest the rule might be better doesn't sway me much (other than to want a better class of coaches).  But how about this for a reason you should want it changed: in this case, the offense has no incentive to FAKE an injury.  If anything they have an incentive to FAKE not being injured.  Consider the risk of an injured player making his injury much worse by not going down when he should or an overzealous teammate trying to help someone with a back injury up and off the field.  Unlikely sure, but if an injury had cost WA a trip to the NCG the likelihood would have gone up quite a bit for the next time it happened.

[Vivian Diana]

If there is an injury timeout and the offensive team wants the clock to continue running, or if the offensive team wants the clock to stop, the play clock will stop

[ElvisLives]

If there is an injury timeout and the offensive team wants the clock to continue running, or if the offensive team wants the clock to stop, the play clock will stop

Not sure where you got that idea, but it is not necessarily the offensive team that controls the situation. it is the opponent of the team that has the injury that controls the situation, which could be either the offense, or the defense. In the instance under discussion, the offense (Washington) - who were ahead in score - had the injury. Their opponent (Texas, on defense), then, had the option to accept a 10-second subtraction and the game clock would, then, be started on the referee's signal (by rule), or decline  the ten-second subtraction, and the game clock would, then, be started on the snap (by rule). Being behind in score, they (Texas) elected to decline the 10SS; thus, the game clock was started on the snap.  All correct, and administered correctly on the field.

This same protocol is in place for a helmet that comes off of a player in the last one minute of the 2nd/4th periods. The opponent of the team whose player had his/her helmet come off controls the situation.

Note that the same protocol is in place, by rule, for fouls that stop the clock in the last one minute of the 2nd/4th periods. In those cases, you can use the term "offended team" for the team that controls the situation (which, again, could be either offense or defense).

In any case, the thing that cannot happen is to decline the 10SS, but then have the game clock start on the referee's signal. That is not allowed by rule, because it is totally nonsensical.