Clock Status Editorial Change

[AFOpie]

Anyone have any details on the editorial change with the clock for this season. I guess RR talked on this at the Honigs Clinic.

[TxBJ]

Anyone have any details on the editorial change with the clock for this season. I guess RR talked on this at the Honigs Clinic.

The clock status based on a 10-second runoff option trumps all other factors in determining clock status. If accepted, the clock will start on the ready; if declined, it will start on the snap, regardless of other timing rules.

[AFOpie]

So if we have a ING on 4th down w/ zap... Clock will start on the RFP when the ball is given to Team B? (Their 1st down)

[Legacy Zebra]

Team B can always take the yardage and loss of down without the runoff if time is important to them. But yes, if they accept the runoff it starts on the RFP for first down. The really interesting case is IG in the end zone with less than 1 minute. The clock starts on te RFP for the free kick instead of the normal free kick clock rules. If I remember correctly a few plays like these were on a bulletin last year as interpretations, and this "change" is just putting these interpretations into the book.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Why would team B when trailing ever accept the zap 10 component of any penalty?  Since the zap 10 is always a separate and declinable penalty option to the primary penalty enforcement wouldn't they simply decline it?  I would offer that this option falls into the "when penalty enforcement option is obvious" category and make sure that we get it right.

[Johnponz]

For AF Opie's comment, I cannot really think of a good reason B would accept the runoff in this situation.  Why wouldn't they want more time on the clock?

If for some reason they did want the runoff, I do not believe it would be applicable.  3-4-4 lists intentional grounding as a foul that includes a runoff if it was thrown "to stop the clock."  This cannot be the case because the clock would have stopped anyhow (4th down change of possession).

[Legacy Zebra]

 

Why would team B when trailing ever accept the zap 10 component of any penalty?  Since the zap 10 is always a separate and declinable penalty option to the primary penalty enforcement wouldn't they simply decline it?  I would offer that this option falls into the "when penalty enforcement option is obvious" category and make sure that we get it right.

Sure, if they're trailing in the 4th quarter I would agree that it's obvious. But what about a tie game? Coach may want to save that time and take a shot or he may want the runoff and let it go to OT. Or in the case of a first half runoff, he may be content to just go to half time whether he's leading, tied, or trailing depending on the circumstances.

For AF Opie's comment, I cannot really think of a good reason B would accept the runoff in this situation.  Why wouldn't they want more time on the clock?

If for some reason they did want the runoff, I do not believe it would be applicable.  3-4-4 lists intentional grounding as a foul that includes a runoff if it was thrown "to stop the clock."  This cannot be the case because the clock would have stopped anyhow (4th down change of possession).

If Team B were winning and Team A were in desperation mode and got called for IG on 4th down, Team B would want the runoff because they'd be trying to end the game. Plus, if the runoff left the game clock at or under 25 seconds, they wouldn't even have to snap it on 1st down since it's going to start on the RFP. Or, again, if in the first half, they may just want to get to halftime.

If for some reason they did want the runoff, I do not believe it would be applicable.  3-4-4 lists intentional grounding as a foul that includes a runoff if it was thrown "to stop the clock."  This cannot be the case because the clock would have stopped anyhow (4th down change of possession).

3-4-4 also lists an incomplete illegal forward pass, which intentional grounding falls under in 7-3-2. Also, the clock stopping anyway for 4th down is immaterial. Team A committed a foul that caused the clock to stop immediately. The rule about a foul being the only reason the clock stops is in 3-4-3 regarding the last two minutes of a half. The only thing that would prevent the runoff for IG would be an offsetting foul as in 3-4-4-e and AR 3-4-4-IV.

[Johnponz]

Why does the rule specifically carve out Intentional Grounding to stop the clock if the generic incomplete illegal forward pass provision is intended to apply? 

Ordinarily specific language (Intentional Grounding which is a specific case of an incomplete illegal forward pass) takes precedent over more general language (Incomplete Forward Pass is a general category of which one type is Intentional Grounding).

[AFOpie]

ING is a foul that is used to conserve time and/or yardage all the other illegal passes (2nd forward pass or pass beyond the line) are more of mistakes than acts to save time/yardage. Which is why the ZAP applies.

[Johnponz]

In the instant case, how can you conclude they were ING the ball to stop the clock when the clock would have stopped anyway for COP?

[AFOpie]

Because it did not stop anyway for the COP. There is no COP until the penalty is carried out. There is not COP until that is done. Anyways, it is also 'by rule' in the rule book.

[Joe Stack]

The clock doesn't stop for a change of possession in this case. The clock stops at the end of any 4th down. Even if Team A achieves a first down on that play. There's no COP unless you determine that Team A in fact did not gain a first down. Yes, an incomplete pass on 4th down would be a pretty big clue that they didn't get a first, but just think of it in context with other potential plays.

I'm not sure I buy the idea that an ING on 4th down "trumps" the stopping at the end of the play anyway. Unless, that is what the rule/ruling actually says. There's no "mens rea" in football!

[Johnponz]

I do not buy into your logic.  You write like you have the definitive answer but there is at least as much of an argument on the other side. 

I still do not see how you can say that this case of IG was thrown to stop the clock when the clock would have stopped in any case for the COP.

I do not think "by rule" applies because the rules specifically says IG thrown to stop the clock triggers the run off.  In this case, the argument is that IG must not have been thrown to stop the clock because it would have stopped for COP.  By rule there is no runoff in this case.

 I will have to see an AR on this before I agree with your interpretation.