RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: GPC2 on October 13, 2011, 08:48:35 PM
-
21-21 in 4th Quarter, :25 on game clock. A12 throws an Interception to B24 on the B40. As he is about to be tackled on the A20, B24 intentionally throws the ball forward OOB. When the ball is declared dead, the game clock reads :07.
...and the answer to 'Why would he throw the ball OOB, since the clock is going to stop anyway?' is Why do any of the players do any of the foolish things they do?
FR-52, 3-4-4-a-3 seems to be a bit ambiguous
-
Enforce the illegal forward pass penalty from the spot of the throw (team A's option). Since there is no game clock benefit to team B, and it was the ball going out of bounds that actually caused the ball to be declared dead and subsequently stop the clock, IMO we don't have a 10 second runoff option here. Somewhere I've seen a guidance that says that if the foul did not directly benefit the fouling team relative to the clock, then the 10 second runoff should not be offered. That is clearly the case here with a COP, with the game clock winding on the snap. I'll keep looking for the "guidance" referenced.
-
Enforce the illegal forward pass penalty from the spot of the throw (team A's option). Since there is no game clock benefit to team B, and it was the ball going out of bounds that actually caused the ball to be declared dead and subsequently stop the clock, IMO we don't have a 10 second runoff option here. Somewhere I've seen a guidance that says that if the foul did not directly benefit the fouling team relative to the clock, then the 10 second runoff should not be offered. That is clearly the case here with a COP, with the game clock winding on the snap. I'll keep looking for the "guidance" referenced.
An incomplete illegal forward pass is one of the reasons for a 10 second subtraction, mentioned in 3-4-4 so this would be a 10 second runoff and game over. It doesn't matte if it was A or B that committed the IFP. The 10 second run subtraction option is given to the team, but they may or may not want the subtraction to be applied. In this case, they most definitely would.
-
Agree that the play meets the listed requirement but that clock is going to stop anyway on the COP with the subsequent DB, so the pass was not the only reason the clocked stopped. Didn't we discuss this earlier (June / July timeframe) and have some guidance that if the clock would stop anyway, and not only because of the foul that the 10-second runoff would not apply? I'm still looking but can't find anything.
IMO common sense says that B did not gain a clock advantage via the foul (maybe a stupid play), so we should not be penalizing them with a 10-second runoff. The original written support for the 10-second runoff stated that it was intended to eliminate the game clock benefit gained by either team by committing the underlying foul.
-
Agree that the play meets the listed requirement but that clock is going to stop anyway on the COP with the subsequent DB, so the pass was not the only reason the clocked stopped. Didn't we discuss this earlier (June / July timeframe) and have some guidance that if the clock would stop anyway, and not only because of the foul that the 10-second runoff would not apply? I'm still looking but can't find anything.
IMO common sense says that B did not gain a clock advantage via the foul (maybe a stupid play), so we should not be penalizing them with a 10-second runoff. The original written support for the 10-second runoff stated that it was intended to eliminate the game clock benefit gained by either team by committing the underlying foul.
But the clock will stop on ANY incomplete illegal forward pass, so that being the case, why would it be specifically listed in 3-4-4-a-3 unless it should be a 10 second run off?
-
CFO Play #9 of examples of the 10 second runoff from August 8th. This is in incomplete illegal forward pass, which would stop the clock just as the one by team B. Whether team A or team B throws it, if it is incomplete the clock will stop.
9. Second and 5 at the B-20. QB A12 rolls out to pass, runs to the B-17 and throws a forward pass, which falls incomplete. The game clock shows 15 seconds.
RULING: Illegal forward pass. Five-yard penalty at the spot of the foul, loss of down, and 10-second subtraction. Third and seven at the B-22. The game clock is set at 5 seconds and starts on the Referee’s signal.
-
IMO the 10 second runoff should not be applied here. From the February 21, 2011 Rules Committee memo on rules changes (the text in italics):
- The 10-second rule does not apply if the game clock is not running when the foul occurs or if the foul does not cause the game clock to stop (e.g., illegal formation).
While technically the clock stops due to the INC OB, it would have stopped anyway as the player was being tackled after a change of possession.
- Rationale: A team should not gain a clock advantage by forcing the clock to stop by committing a foul.
B gains no clock advantage on this play since by rule the clock would stop without the illegal forward pass.
Penalizing B in this instance would not be appropriate based on the 2 specific reasons given for the rule change:
1. B did not gain a clock advantage by the foul, and
2. The foul was not the only reason that the clock stopped.
-
There are two approaches here and you have to choose between what you think caused the clock to stop. Did the clock stop because of a first down being awarded to team B or because of the incomplete illegal forward pass? I'm not really current on the new runoff rules yet (we use 2011 rules next year), but I'd say that the clock was not stopped due to the penalty so the runoff rule does not apply. Start the clock on the snap.
-
IMO the 10 second runoff should not be applied here. From the February 21, 2011 Rules Committee memo on rules changes (the text in italics):
- The 10-second rule does not apply if the game clock is not running when the foul occurs or if the foul does not cause the game clock to stop (e.g., illegal formation).
While technically the clock stops due to the INC OB, it would have stopped anyway as the player was being tackled after a change of possession.
- Rationale: A team should not gain a clock advantage by forcing the clock to stop by committing a foul.
B gains no clock advantage on this play since by rule the clock would stop without the illegal forward pass.
Penalizing B in this instance would not be appropriate based on the 2 specific reasons given for the rule change:
1. B did not gain a clock advantage by the foul, and
2. The foul was not the only reason that the clock stopped.
The clock always stops for an incomplete forward pass, so why rule 3-4-4-a-3???? This is not a just an incomplete forward pass, it is an illegal incomplete forward pass. That is the one point that I cannot see past.
-
It does apply if the IFP is against Team A - in that case the clock would stop ONLY because of the IFP and no other reason.
-
It does apply if the IFP is against Team A - in that case the clock would stop ONLY because of the IFP and no other reason.
The clock would stop if it was any incomplete pass, not just an IFP. In the rulebook it doesn't say IFP's only by team A, so why should we assume that?
-
The clock would stop if it was any incomplete pass, not just an IFP. In the rulebook it doesn't say IFP's only by team A, so why should we assume that?
What if, instead of intentionally throwing the ball forward and out of bounds, B24 intentionally throws it backward and OB? Would you flag that and apply a 10-sec subtraction?
-
Also, does ZAP10 apply in this play and does team A gain any clock advantage from their foul?
4th qtr 0:15 remaining. Score is A28-B31. 3rd and 15 at A-40. A12 throws a legal forward pass to A88 at B-45. A88 advances to B-30 and just when he is about to be tackled he throws an illegal incomplete forward pass. Four seconds remain in the game clock.
-
What if, instead of intentionally throwing the ball forward and out of bounds, B24 intentionally throws it backward and OB? Would you flag that and apply a 10-sec subtraction?
Yes, according to RR's play examples on 10 second run offs on the CFO website no August 8th.
21. Third and 7 at the B-30. Ball carrier A22 is near the sideline at the B-28. About to be tackled and trying to get out of bounds, he throws the ball backward out of bounds to stop the clock. When the down is over the game clock shows 37 seconds.
RULING: Foul under Rule 7-2-1. Five-yard penalty from the spot of the foul plus loss of down and possible 10-second subtraction.
-
Also, does ZAP10 apply in this play and does team A gain any clock advantage from their foul?
4th qtr 0:15 remaining. Score is A28-B31. 3rd and 15 at A-40. A12 throws a legal forward pass to A88 at B-45. A88 advances to B-30 and just when he is about to be tackled he throws an illegal incomplete forward pass. Four seconds remain in the game clock.
This is an illegal incomplete forward pass, so I don't know why not? It is similar to RR question on the CFO website in August on 10 second run offs, except it is not the QB which shouldn't make any difference.
9. Second and 5 at the B-20. QB A12 rolls out to pass, runs to the B-17 and throws a forward pass, which falls incomplete. The game clock shows 15 seconds.
RULING: Illegal forward pass. Five-yard penalty at the spot of the foul, loss of down, and 10-second subtraction. Third and seven at the B-22. The game clock is set at 5 seconds and starts on the Referee’s signal.
-
This is an illegal incomplete forward pass, so I don't know why not? It is similar to RR question on the CFO website in August on 10 second run offs, except it is not the QB which shouldn't make any difference.
In the CFO play team A does not make the line to gain, so they gain an unfair advantage by stopping the clock. In the play I posed team A does make the line to gain so the game clock will stop anyway until the ready for play, and by rule (not by referees discretion) it will start on the ready - just like the receiver would have dropped to the ground. Now, what clock advantage does team A gain by throwing an illegal incomplete forward pass in this situation?
Now, I must say again that football is a game and it has basically arbitrary rules, so in that sense either choice is all fine with me.
-
Yes, according to RR's play examples on 10 second run offs on the CFO website no August 8th.
21. Third and 7 at the B-30. Ball carrier A22 is near the sideline at the B-28. About to be tackled and trying to get out of bounds, he throws the ball backward out of bounds to stop the clock. When the down is over the game clock shows 37 seconds.
RULING: Foul under Rule 7-2-1. Five-yard penalty from the spot of the foul plus loss of down and possible 10-second subtraction.
This CFO Example 21 has a Team A player throwing a backward pass OB. The play on the table and the modified one that I posed describe a Team B player intentionally throwing the pass OB. That's a big difference. I'm not sure we can use that CFO example to support the same ruling in my modified play.
But perhaps the CFO Example 21 provides insight for the play Kalle posed. Note the CFO play has the Team A player throwing the ball OB from a point behind the line to gain. Reckon that was deliberate?
-
In the CFO play team A does not make the line to gain, so they gain an unfair advantage by stopping the clock. In the play I posed team A does make the line to gain so the game clock will stop anyway until the ready for play, and by rule (not by referees discretion) it will start on the ready - just like the receiver would have dropped to the ground. Now, what clock advantage does team A gain by throwing an illegal incomplete forward pass in this situation?
There'll be a delay while you work out what the penalty is and what the next down is going to be (and then march it off, announce it, reposition everyone, etc); this gives them plenty of time to sort themselves out for the next play, maybe bring a couple of subs in, or the field goal unit, without the time pressure that they'd have been under to do it before the RFP.
-
If there had been more than 10 seconds left in the half, would we have then wound the clock on the RFP ?
If the 'clock starts on the ready for 10 second runoff/clock starts on the snap for no runoff' mechanic trumps clock always starting on the snap after a change of possession, that would surprise me.
If that isn't the case, I think we have our answer.
-
I guess we have our answer. 10 second runoff DOES apply. From the CFO test:
10. Third and 13 at the B-45 late in the fourth quarter. Leading by four points, Team A throws a forward pass which B44 intercepts. As B44 is about to be tackled at the B-30 he throws the ball forward and is flagged for an illegal forward pass. The pass falls to the ground incomplete. When the ball is dead the game clock reads 0:13.
c. Following the yardage penalty and the 10-second runoff Team B will have first and 10 at the B-25. The clock starts on the snap.
REFERENCES: 3-4-4, 3-3-2-d, 3-3-2-f
COMMENTS: The illegal forward pass foul causes the clock to stop so the 10-second runoff applies. However, the clock also stops because Team B will next snap the ball, which causes the clock to start on the snap. By 3-3-2-f, the clock starts on the snap.
-
Wow - I wonder how many other gremlins are lurking in the 10 second subtraction play scenario weeds.
There's one big except for the clock status after a runoff. Sure am glad we have clarification on the play.
-
Still have a MAJOR problem with this. This initial case play here does not come close to meeting the original criteria for the 10-second runoff rule as clearly written in the pre-season rule change memo.
Team B in this play gains no clock advantage by fouling - that's the only justification for the rule change from day 1. The additional penalty (the 10-second runoff) is ONLY intended to make the offended whole for the advantage gained by the team committing the original foul, if we runoff the 10 here, we're enforcing a 2nd penalty for an advantage that was not gained to begin with.
-
Still have a MAJOR problem with this. This initial case play here does not come close to meeting the original criteria for the 10-second runoff rule as clearly written in the pre-season rule change memo.
Team B in this play gains no clock advantage by fouling - that's the only justification for the rule change from day 1. The additional penalty (the 10-second runoff) is ONLY intended to make the offended whole for the advantage gained by the team committing the original foul, if we runoff the 10 here, we're enforcing a 2nd penalty for an advantage that was not gained to begin with.
The play that pushed the whole 10 second runoff issue into the forefront doesn't even meet the new rule.
UNC started to run their FG team onto the field, as they had no timeouts. They changed theor mind, and while extra players were still on the field, the QB threw a spike, which is what stopped the clock. The penalty for Illegal Substitution did NOT stop the clock. It COULD have if the play had been shut down before the snap, but it wasn't, the incomplete pass stood. So under the new rule, there would be no 10 second runoff.
-
The play that pushed the whole 10 second runoff issue into the forefront doesn't even meet the new rule.
UNC started to run their FG team onto the field, as they had no timeouts. They changed theor mind, and while extra players were still on the field, the QB threw a spike, which is what stopped the clock. The penalty for Illegal Substitution did NOT stop the clock. It COULD have if the play had been shut down before the snap, but it wasn't, the incomplete pass stood. So under the new rule, there would be no 10 second runoff.
AB, if all the UNC players never got set, it should not have been an illegal substitution cuz the play falls under the new "false start" rule (7-1-2-B-5) and is then subject to the 10 second run off. If that happened and the officials did not shut it down and go with a false start, the forward 4 officials are all going to get a downgrade.
-
The 10-second runoff rule alone doesn't address last year's play, but by today's revised rules we could whistle and flag at the snap when the team, as in the play that "started this all" had more than 11 on the field for an extended period, and still had 13 or 14 on the field when the QB watched the players leaving, knew that they weren't going to get off and intentionally called for the snap. Those 2010-2011 substitution rules changes now allow us to kill the play for the substitution foul, and since the foul would stop the clock, the 10-second runoff then is in play as part of the penalty enforcement.
You're correct in that the 10-second runoff would not apply if the substitution rule had not also been tweaked, but I believe that the revised rules when taken together have closed that loophole.
-
The 10-second runoff rule alone doesn't address last year's play, but by today's revised rules we could whistle and flag at the snap when the team, as in the play that "started this all" had more than 11 on the field for an extended period, and still had 13 or 14 on the field when the QB watched the players leaving, knew that they weren't going to get off and intentionally called for the snap. Those 2010-2011 substitution rules changes now allow us to kill the play for the substitution foul, and since the foul would stop the clock, the 10-second runoff then is in play as part of the penalty enforcement.
You're correct in that the 10-second runoff would not apply if the substitution rule had not also been tweaked, but I believe that the revised rules when taken together have closed that loophole.
Yes, that is what I was saying with my post.