Play Clock?

[ncwingman]

1. The last legal down was a legal kick play
2. The game clock is stopped to award team R a new series
3. The play clock is set to 25 seconds by rule in 3-6-1-a-1-f
4. And starts on the RFP

Fully agree. No argument here. After the kick play, play clock is set to :25.

After an officials timeout due to a defensive injury, equipment issue or penalty, the above becomes irrelevant and now we look at 3-6-1-a-1-e Exceptions and reset the play clock to :40 to restart the play.

Our guidance based on what I believe is the clear wording in the rule is we complete the penalty, reset the play clock back to the original 25 and move on.  We have been clearly instructed that if we had a 25 second play clock that was interrupted by a flag or any other official timeout then that is where we reset the play clock to.

If that's the guidance you've been given, then do that, but there's no rule justification for it.

[NVFOA_Ump]

If that's the guidance you've been given, then do that, but there's no rule justification for it.

Justification has been documented twice already.  'Nuf said.

[bama_stripes]

K's Punt was downed at the 30. Was that play not a legal down?

If you're picking the fly poop out of the pepper by saying that Exception 2 for 3-6-1-a-1-e doesn't mean it's a :40 play clock, then what does it mean? If you have any dead ball foul on B, where the exception states that you wouldn't set the play clock to :25 and it's not "following a down" so you can't set it to :40... what do you set it to? Is there any rule coverage at all? Can we invoke 1-1-6 and set the play clock to :37?

C’mon, man.  As Ralph has explained, the purpose of :40 following a defensive foul is to prevent the defense from illegally forcing A to run a play they wouldn’t have to run sans the foul.  In this case, A wasn’t entitled to :40, and therefore wasn’t disadvantaged.

[ncwingman]

C’mon, man.  As Ralph has explained, the purpose of :40 following a defensive foul is to prevent the defense from illegally forcing A to run a play they wouldn’t have to run sans the foul.  In this case, A wasn’t entitled to :40, and therefore wasn’t disadvantaged.

As Ralph also explained, the purpose was to prevent B from illegally forcing A to run a play *at the end of a half* so he proposed it should only apply with less than 2 minutes to go, but that didn't fly and the rule was written broadly with universal application. B isn't illegally forcing A to run a play with 8 minutes left in the first quarter, since A will have to run many more plays anyway -- but the play clock gets set to :40 after a defensive foul then just as it would with 30 seconds left in the game.

[NVFOA_Ump]

As Ralph also explained, the purpose was to prevent B from illegally forcing A to run a play *at the end of a half* so he proposed it should only apply with less than 2 minutes to go, but that didn't fly and the rule was written broadly with universal application. B isn't illegally forcing A to run a play with 8 minutes left in the first quarter, since A will have to run many more plays anyway -- but the play clock gets set to :40 after a defensive foul then just as it would with 30 seconds left in the game.

But again you miss the point.  The game clock is NOT RUNNING and starts on the snap.  A would have to run another play regardless of the play clock - that's the whole point.

[KDJBBBJ]

As I said we'll simply disagree since I believe that we read the rules as written and as intended when the changes were added with clear explanation from NFHS.

This is how I think it works.
 
After the kick and the injury the play clock is set to 25, then during that 25 the defense fouls. That part of the rule has been satisfied.  Now we go to 40 because of the foul by a player on the defensive team.[quote

[CalhounLJ]

This is how I think it works.
 
After the kick and the injury the play clock is set to 25, then during that 25 the defense fouls. That part of the rule has been satisfied.  Now we go to 40 because of the foul by a player on the defensive team.[quote

I think you’re right but I have an even better idea. Since the powers that be have given us the freedom to do what makes sense and disregard the rules as written in re: penalty enforcement, let’s just do the same thing here. If it makes sense to give A :49 to prevent an advantage by B, do it. If not, give ‘em a :25 and move on.