RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => National Federation Discussion => Topic started by: ck4597 on October 23, 2017, 04:04:43 PM
-
this come up during a post game beverage and we could not agree on answer...
2&8 A35 1:50 on clock 2nd quarter. A 35 is tackled at A 38. A 78 is called for holding during run. After whistle B56 is called for late hit. Who gets the clock option?
-
You didn't specify whether A was tackled in-bounds or OOB. If the play ended in-bounds, the clock would normally start, after enforcement, on the ready. A would have the option of having the clock start on the snap. If A declines to exercise the option leaving the clock to start on the RFP, and B's late hit penalty is accepted, NFHS 3-4-7, which allows an offended team, following an accepted penalty to elect to change the clock starting until the snap, would have that option.
If A was tackled OOB, the clock will start on the snap at the (ultimate) succeeding spot, so no clock option exists.
-
Both teams are offended; both fouls are (presumably) enforced; both teams get the option. In practice, this almost certainly means that you're starting on the snap no matter what, except maybe at the end of a not-close game when both coaches just want to get off the field without injuries.
-
Here is the question I posed to George Demetriou:
Inside 2 minutes in the 2nd and 4th quarters, assuming no major clock stoppage and that both fouls are accepted, if one tem fouls live ball and the opponent fouls dead ball, wouldn't the live ball foul take precedence for the purpose of choosing when the clock should start?
His reply:
It is not written anywhere (yet), but it makes perfect sense.
Thanks,
George
-
Have we gotten an official answer on this from Fed yet?
Because I was told originally that until we get further guidance that if both teams foul we should not apply the new rule at all.
-
Since A fouled first (live ball), B would have the option. If they elected to start on the snap, A would have no option, because the rule does not allow to go from a stopped clock to a running clock. If B keeps the clock starting on RFP, then A would have a choice. If both fouls were live ball, nobody has a choice, they offset and clock is as it was at start of down.
-
... and clock is as it was at start of down.
The clock would start on the RFP or the snap depending on what occurred during the play, not based on the clock status at the start of the previous down.
-
IMHO it's important to remember the original purpose of this rule. When the rule was originally adopted it was clear in the explanation that it was intended to address the possible game clock advantage gained by the fouling team and to minimize that advantage by offering the RFP vs. snap game clock option. In a case where we have already stopped the clock to enforce a penalty and there is an "after the whistle" DB foul, that DB foul has no effective game clock impact.
-
^This is true. The situation would be more understandable at the end of a game. Let's say A is ahead by 2, it's 4th down, clock at :30, play clock at :02. A "false starts" to try and get another 25. For some reason, B takes offense at A and clocks the snapper. Dead ball foul. In this case I would assume we still ask B if he wants the clock to start on snap, right?
-
A definition of bureaucratic excess, it can be worthwhile to consider, and avoid; "When common sense and practical application come in conflict with written directions, rather than reason the objective simply follow the instruction."
-
^This is true. The situation would be more understandable at the end of a game. Let's say A is ahead by 2, it's 4th down, clock at :30, play clock at :02. A "false starts" to try and get another 25. For some reason, B takes offense at A and clocks the snapper. Dead ball foul. In this case I would assume we still ask B if he wants the clock to start on snap, right?
That's what I would do; and I believe that is EXACTLY the reason for the rule change tiphat: While B's DBPF is dumb, it has nothing to do with the clock status when it occurred.
-
^This is true. The situation would be more understandable at the end of a game. Let's say A is ahead by 2, it's 4th down, clock at :30, play clock at :02. A "false starts" to try and get another 25. For some reason, B takes offense at A and clocks the snapper. Dead ball foul. In this case I would assume we still ask B if he wants the clock to start on snap, right?
Or, just apply 3-4-6 to start on the snap : When a team attempts to conserve or consume time illegally, the referee shall order the clock started or stopped.
-
IMHO it's important to remember the original purpose of this rule. When the rule was originally adopted it was clear in the explanation that it was intended to address the possible game clock advantage gained by the fouling team and to minimize that advantage by offering the RFP vs. snap game clock option. In a case where we have already stopped the clock to enforce a penalty and there is an "after the whistle" DB foul, that DB foul has no effective game clock impact.
While I agree with you on the idea behind the rule, that's not what the rule says. It doesn't specify a live ball foul, nor does it specify a foul that occurs where the clock would be running had the foul not occured.
I suspect this will get "corrected" in next year's book to be more in line with that idea.
-
While I agree with you on the idea behind the rule, that's not what the rule says. It doesn't specify a live ball foul, nor does it specify a foul that occurs where the clock would be running had the foul not occured.
I suspect this will get "corrected" in next year's book to be more in line with that idea.
Furthermore, the fix isn't as simple as specifying "live ball foul", because it *is* specifically designed to deal with things like false starts, which are dead ball fouls.
-
The fix might be a bit wordy (but when is the rule book not wordy?), but it might be as simple as:
"If a live ball foul and dead ball foul (or live ball foul enforced as a dead ball foul) occur during the same interval, only the team offended by the live ball foul has the choice of whether to delay starting the clock to the snap" (Is interval the word I want? Time period between RFPs... whatever that is)
Furthermore, I'd probably also augment it that fouls that do not extend the period also don't get to change the clock status (those covered in 3-3-4b -- UNS, non-player, loss of down, enforced on kickoff or enforced as safety -- the last two wouldn't matter, since the clock doesn't start on the RFP after those fouls anyway). I'm willing to hear arguments why loss of down fouls shouldn't be in there though.
-
Here's my attempt at Rule Writing in an attempt to clarify this rule:
If, under 2 minutes remaining in the 2nd or 4th quarters, a foul occurs during the down – and/or prior to the next RFP - the offended team is awarded the choice of starting the clock on the snap rather than the RFP assuming the clock was stopped only for the administration of the penalty.
If fouls by both teams occur during this same interval, the choice is awarded based on the following protocol:
Double foul – neither team gets choice
Live ball foul by A followed by dead ball foul* by B – B gets choice
Live ball foul by B followed by dead ball foul* by A – A gets choice
Double dead ball fouls** – neither team gets choice
Equal number of 15 yd dead ball fouls - neither team gets choice
Unequal number of 15 yd dead ball fouls - opponent of the team committing the last dead ball foul gets choice
*Includes live ball fouls treated as dead ball fouls
**Regardless of whether the penalties are 5 or 15 yds
Also to answer NCWingman's "challenge", I would suggest the following:
1. Furthermore, I'd probably also augment it that fouls that do not extend the period also don't get to change the clock status (those covered in 3-3-4b -- UNS, non-player, loss of down, enforced on kickoff or enforced as safety -- the last two wouldn't matter, since the clock doesn't start on the RFP after those fouls anyway).
I would argue that including specific fouls and excluding others is unnecessarily confusing.
2.I 'm willing to hear arguments why loss of down fouls shouldn't be in there though.
If B trails, and A fouls for a completed illegal fwd pass, illegal touching of a completed fwd pass, illegal fwd handing, I would assume they (B) would want to keep the clock stopped.
GO AHEAD BOYS...HAVE AT IT pi1eOn pi1eOn
-
Here's my attempt at Rule Writing in an attempt to clarify this rule:
If, under 2 minutes remaining in the 2nd or 4th quarters, a foul occurs during the down – and/or prior to the next RFP - the offended team is awarded the choice of starting the clock on the snap rather than the RFP assuming the clock was stopped only for the administration of the penalty.
If fouls by both teams occur during this same interval, the choice is awarded based on the following protocol:
Double foul – neither team gets choice
Live ball foul by A followed by dead ball foul* by B – B gets choice
Live ball foul by B followed by dead ball foul* by A – A gets choice
Double dead ball fouls** – neither team gets choice
Equal number of 15 yd dead ball fouls - neither team gets choice
Unequal number of 15 yd dead ball fouls - opponent of the team committing the last dead ball foul gets choice
*Includes live ball fouls treated as dead ball fouls
**Regardless of whether the penalties are 5 or 15 yds
Also to answer NCWingman's "challenge", I would suggest the following:
1. Furthermore, I'd probably also augment it that fouls that do not extend the period also don't get to change the clock status (those covered in 3-3-4b -- UNS, non-player, loss of down, enforced on kickoff or enforced as safety -- the last two wouldn't matter, since the clock doesn't start on the RFP after those fouls anyway).
I would argue that including specific fouls and excluding others is unnecessarily confusing.
2.I 'm willing to hear arguments why loss of down fouls shouldn't be in there though.
If B trails, and A fouls for a completed illegal fwd pass, illegal touching of a completed fwd pass, illegal fwd handing, I would assume they (B) would want to keep the clock stopped.
GO AHEAD BOYS...HAVE AT IT pi1eOn pi1eOn
If B trails and A is flagged for an illegal forward pass, A’s coach should be fired for stupidity. Just saying. If the situation were reversed, and A threw the IFP to stop the clock, B certainly wouldn’t want to choose the option, so that would be a moot point. However, I’m in agreement that pulling specific fouls out would muddy the situation. It’s my opinion the rule is pretty good as it stands, we just need clarification on a few scenarios.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
I say A since A:s foul happened during the dead ball foul
-
From a practical standpoint: If it's a close game under 2 minutes, and we have a LB/DB foul situation, the team who trails will want the clock held until the snap.
Does it really matter which team gets the first choice?
-
No
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
-
From Calhoun: If B trails and A is flagged for an illegal forward pass, A’s coach should be fired for stupidity. Just saying. Agree; but, as we all know 17 or 18 yr old kids don't always follow directions well or forget where they are in certain situations.
If the situation were reversed, and A threw the IFP to stop the clock, B certainly wouldn’t want to choose the option, so that would be a moot point. True if the pass were complete; but certainly, if incomplete, the officials would invoke 3-4-6 However, I’m in agreement that pulling specific fouls out would muddy the situation. It’s my opinion the rule is pretty good as it stands, we just need clarification on a few scenarios. That's really the point of my post
-
CLOCK RUNNING + UNDER 2:00, 2 or 4 QTR + PLAY THAT DOESN'T STOP CLOCK + LIVE BALL FOUL BY A + DEAD BALL FOUL BY B = B's choice to start on snap = IF they don't choose to, A can then choose. (interp from July meeting).
Double fouls or dueling dead ball fouls = same as regular timing.
The perceived fouls with our new rule occurring most often are encroachment and false start, both dead ball fouls.
This doesn't apply to running time (TIPS).
LOD fouls are treated the same.
-
WOW!!! Where was this published? Questions below
CLOCK RUNNING + UNDER 2:00, 2 or 4 QTR + PLAY THAT DOESN'T STOP CLOCK + LIVE BALL FOUL BY A + DEAD BALL FOUL BY B = B's choice to start on snap = IF they don't choose to, A can then choose. (interp from July meeting). Is the reverse the same (Live ball foul by B + DBF by A=A's choice?)
Double fouls or dueling dead ball fouls = same as regular timing. Just off-setting or unequal number?
The perceived fouls with our new rule occurring most often are encroachment and false start, both dead ball fouls. Reality is more than this perception...
This doesn't apply to running time (TIPS). This makes sense!
LOD fouls are treated the same. Same as what? Choice for "offended team"?
-
Furthermore, the fix isn't as simple as specifying "live ball foul", because it *is* specifically designed to deal with things like false starts, which are dead ball fouls.
Agreed. I think the easy fix is to specify "a foul that occurs while the clock is not stopped" or some such.
While I'm not one to bring up NCAA in this forum, how does the college book define when the "zap 10" occurs? I know it only applies to fouls committed while the clock is running.
-
The "zap 10" occurs during the last minute of the half when a foul causes the (running) clock to stop.
This include presnap fouls that prevent the ball from becoming live (false start, yes, illegal formation, no) and fouls like intentional grounding or an incomplete illegal forward pass that cause the ball to become dead and the clock to stop immediately.
-
I'd love to see something like that come into play in Fed, though I suspect that NFHS would find that rule "too complicated".
-
B gets option,A's OH caused clock stoppage even though B foul was DB.Depending on game situation,decision is B's
-
[hypothetical on] If FED adopted zap-10, and this was in the last minute of the 2nd quarter, A would have the option to choose zap-10, because B's foul prevented the clock from starting (It was already stopped due to the enforcement of A's OH). [hypothetical off]
Without zap-10, B would have the option, because B was originally the offended team. If B declines their option, A gets to choose.
-
[hypothetical on] If FED adopted zap-10, and this was in the last minute of the 2nd quarter, A would have the option to choose zap-10, because B's foul prevented the clock from starting (It was already stopped due to the enforcement of A's OH). [hypothetical off]
That’s not how the 10 sec RO works. It only applies if the foul causes the clock to stop. Since the clock was stopped to enforce the OH, the DB foul did not affect the clock. Neither team would have the option for a runoff.
-
That’s not how the 10 sec RO works. It only applies if the foul causes the clock to stop. Since the clock was stopped to enforce the OH, the DB foul did not affect the clock. Neither team would have the option for a runoff.
D'oh! Now, with zap-10, there would be no options. Clock was stopped, so no runoff. Because fouls by both teams, (and clock stopped), no runoff, clock starts on snap.
In FED, would the clock start on the snap, by default?
-
B gets option,A's OH caused clock stoppage even though B foul was DB.Depending on game situation,decision is B's
As was stated earlier in this thread, as the rule currently reads and was interpreted at the interpreters meeting last July, B gets the option and if they do not choose to start on the snap then A gets the option as well.
In FED, would the clock start on the snap, by default?
If there are no options to either team, the clock would start depending on what occurred during the play. OOB, incomplete, etc. is on the snap, down inbounds is on the ready.
-
I'd love to see something like that come into play in Fed, though I suspect that NFHS would find that rule "too complicated".
I have not seen the "runoff rule" proposed @ NFHS since my time on the rules committee.
I believe my time on the rules committee exceeds the time that the runoff rule has been in town @ NCAA.
I believe ,with the Bruins now out, I'll root for the Tampa Bay lightning.
I believe it is now time for some clam-broth coffee.
tR:oLl :puke:
-
I believe, with the Bruins now out, I'll root for the Tampa Bay lightning.
Welcome Ralph!! Glad to have you on board. pHiNzuP
-
Welcome Ralph!! Glad to have you on board. pHiNzuP
We've attended several Lightning games over the years when at our vacation spot on St. Pete Beach. The Lightning fans always seemed to enjoy good hockey. Conversely, fans at the Boston Garden only seem to enjoy good BRUINS hockey. :) Several former Lightning players and a coach were U-Maine alum - that added to the interest.