RefStripes.com
Football Officiating => NCAA Discussion => Topic started by: TXMike on February 22, 2011, 06:56:28 PM
-
See the attached document.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
The addition of the new rule regarding the 10 second runoff doesn't help any with the play that happened in the Music City Bowl. I was hoping for something to take us out of the line of fire if situations like that come up again.
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).
-
It might have helped. (Assuming the crew had shut it down before the snap and penalized Team A for having too many on the field) Since IR apparently ruled that is what should have been called, I thnk they would have been right (under new rule) to take the 10 off.
-
Blocking below the waist will be fun this year, especially with those three man JV games.
-
So with blocking below the waist wording "Exceptions: Before a change of possession on scrimmage downs that do not include kicks....." how would the following example be enforced:
2&10 - Ball on A40. Team A in standard formation (i.e. not an obvious kicking formation) Ball is snapped to A23. Player B76 (who fulfilled exception c) blocks a player below the waist. A23 then punts the ball.
I assume the BBW was legal at the time and it was not obvious a kick would be made then we would not have a foul - however the language used is slightly blurred in this example as it was a scrimmage down in which a kick was made thus making all BBW illegal.
Am I missing something?
-
So with blocking below the waist wording "Exceptions: Before a change of possession on scrimmage downs that do not include kicks....." how would the following example be enforced:
2&10 - Ball on A40. Team A in standard formation (i.e. not an obvious kicking formation) Ball is snapped to A23. Player B76 (who fulfilled exception c) blocks a player below the waist. A23 then punts the ball.
I assume the BBW was legal at the time and it was not obvious a kick would be made then we would not have a foul - however the language used is slightly blurred in this example as it was a scrimmage down in which a kick was made thus making all BBW illegal.
Am I missing something?
Keep in mind that we don't have the final language, so I wouldn't get to o caught up in trying to out-guess the final rule. But, the previous rule allowed BBW until the physical change of possession when a legal kick was made NOT from a scrimmage kick formation. I wouldn't imagine that concept would change.
-
Blocking below the waist will be fun this year, especially with those three man JV games.
Now that the 10 yard "zone" has been removed we our going to be challenged with knowing where the blocker was originally positioned at the snap. A player who may be your key and in a position to where he can block below the waist legally may get flagged by another official who doesn't know where he came from.
-
Every official should know their original key or keys at the snap. You should also know you are flagging someone else's key. In this case you need to communicate.
-
Blocking below the waist (other than against the ball carrier) is illegal.
Exceptions:
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b).
Play: After the snap, QB runs an option play. Back A44 is trailing the QB. Defensive tackle B88, who was inside the blocking zone at the snap, comes across the NZ and blocks A44 below the waist within the blocking zone extended. A44 was in position to receive a backward pass from the QB.
Foul?
-
Team A player behind the NZ in position to receive a backwards pass can not be blocked below the waist.
-
That is part of the current 9-1-2-e verbiage that is being replaced.
If you read the new language literally, the ONLY time a defensive player can block below the waist is if they are in the blocking zone at the snap, and block low within that zone before it disentigrates.
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b).
So, on a sweep option, not only can the defense not cut the pitch man, they can't cut anyone except the runner unless they do it before the ball gets out of the blocking zone.
-
That is part of the current 9-1-2-e verbiage that is being replaced.
If you read the new language literally, the ONLY time a defensive player can block below the waist is if they are in the blocking zone at the snap, and block low within that zone before it disentigrates.
(c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b).
So, on a sweep option, not only can the defense not cut the pitch man, they can't cut anyone except the runner unless they do it before the ball gets out of the blocking zone.
That's how I see it as well.
By erasing the former 9-1-2-e, the author/s of the new rule removed the prohibition for BBW on the pitch man (9-1-2-e-6). I don't see how the new wording restores the illegality. If anything, the new wording legalizes BBW on the pitch man inside the blocking zone.
Similarly, the new wording indicates it is legal to block an eligible pass receiver below the waist inside the blocking zone, i.e. 3 yds beyond the neutral zone. In previous years, it was legal to BBW against an eligible receiver only at the NZ.
As El Macman noted earlier, there may be modifications on the proposed changes.
-
I haven't really kept track of the current status of the runner/ball carrier editorial change from the previous rule book. Is the distinction still in the rule book + latest patches?
The new 9-1-2-e proposition says "Blocking below the waist (other than against the ball carrier) is illegal". Presumably this means that the defense can't take out a player who is faking a run below the waist. e.g. a deep play-action pass fake so the blocking zone has already disintegrated.
-
How do we muddle out of the seemingly conflicting wording that defines the "blocking zone" and the "blocking zone extended to the sideline"? Which definition are we using to determine when the blocking zone disintegrates? And I tend to agree that the current wording seems to leave the potential "pitch receiver" fair game for a low block by the defense.
-
Defensive backs on the wide out can block below the waist before the blocking zone disintegrates. when the blocking zone disintegrates there is no blocking below the waist by any defensive player except against the runner. The blocking zone disintegrates when the ball leaves the zone. The pitch man is still protected.
-
So what does this language say??? (c) Players of the defensive team who at the snap are inside the blocking zone extended to the sideline may block below the waist inside that area until the blocking zone disintegrates (Rule 2-3-6-b).
Doesn't that say that while the ball is in the blocking zone (rectangle centered on the snapper and extending five yards laterally and three yards longitudinally in each direction) they can cut the WR directly in front of them in the "blocking zone extended"?
-
The addition of the new rule regarding the 10 second runoff doesn't help any with the play that happened in the Music City Bowl. I was hoping for something to take us out of the line of fire if situations like that come up again.
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).
I disagree Jason. I feel it would fall under the category of "E", and that is exactly why they put it in.
(e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock.
This was a foul committed for the sole purpose of stopping the clock, and thus the 10 second run off would apply, I believe.
-
I disagree Jason. I feel it would fall under the category of "E", and that is exactly why they put it in.
(e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock.
This was a foul committed for the sole purpose of stopping the clock, and thus the 10 second run off would apply, I believe.
Doesn't come close. There was no foul with the INTENT or PURPOSE of stopping the clock. UNC started to run players on the field, they realized they weren't going to have time, so they went ahead and snapped the ball and spiked it despite there being too many players on the field. That isn't fouling for the purpose or intent of stopping the clock. The spike would have stopped the clock anyway. The foul wasn't to stop the clock, the foul came while the were otherwise trying to stop the clock.
Fouling to stop the clock would be something like a linemen purposely jumping offside on 4th down when the team had no timeouts remaining.
-
The rule change might have helped. (Assuming the crew had shut it down before the snap and penalized Team A for having too many on the field) Since IR apparently ruled that is what should have been called, I thnk they would have also been right (under new rule) to take the 10 off.
-
Doesn't come close. There was no foul with the INTENT or PURPOSE of stopping the clock.
I would disagree with that opinion. QB looked directly at the multiple departing players, knew the clock was going to expire, knew that he had way more than 11 on the field, and intentionally called for the snap anyway. IMO that qualifies as intentionally creating a foul (by knowingly snapping the ball with more than 11), and could be judged to qualify for the 10 second runoff based on clause (e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock. In this case he had to intentionally commit a foul (knowingly snapping with more than 11), before he could stop the clock by spiking the ball.
I would also think that the wording of the new rule should probably be more like "With the game clock running and less than one minute in either half, if a player of either team commits a foul to conserve time, ....".
-
(e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock.
There's the problem, he didn't FOUL for the purpose of stopping the clock. He was spiking the ball, so he was stopping the clock anyway. That fact that there happened to be a foul is immaterial under the proposed wording.
Snapping the ball with 12 (or 15) on the field is no more fouling to stop the clock than if the guard was called for holding on the play.
I would also think that the wording of the new rule should probably be more like "With the game clock running and less than one minute in either half, if a player of either team commits a foul to conserve time, ....".
This is much more like the NFL rule, and takes the ambiguous wording out of the proposed rule. Doesn't matter what the intent or purpose was; if you fouled and it stopped the clock, and you didn't have any time outs left, it's a ten second run off.
-
I would also think that the wording of the new rule should probably be more like "With the game clock running and less than one minute in either half, if a player of either team commits a foul to conserve time, ....".
Nearly there; but for these kinds of things I'd rather see "a foul that conserves time" and take the cock-up/conspiracy judgement out of the equation. Put the emphasis on the team not to make a balls of it.
-
I hope the full list of fouls that carry a 10-second runoff will be spelled out explicitly. Relying on the guideline of "fouls that cause the clock to stop" is confusing.
As a prime example, am I the only one who feels like an illegal forward pass (that isn't intentional grounding) isn't really a "foul that causes the clock to stop"? To me, the act of illegally passing the ball is a distinct event from the ball a) touching the ground, b) touching something OOB, c) being caught by a downed player, d) being caught by a player in his opponent's EZ, e) remaining in flight while an IW occurs; which are what ACTUALLY cause the clock to stop.
Put another way, if the QB crosses the NZ and throws a Hail Mary with a four second hang time, and then it's muffed around for a good second or two, it's no longer an intuitive thought to me that "Aha, the illegal pass stopped the clock." I wouldn't even agree that conserving time was the passer's intention in the first place.
Also, I can think of other fouls, not mentioned in these announcements, which actually would cause the clock to stop at that precise moment. Any illegal bat by a player who is OOB, for instance - a player who may or may not have the intention to conserve time.
So which fouls *always* carry a 10-second runoff, which fouls never do, and which fouls depend on the player's intent? I hope that information is conveyed as concretely as possible.
-
that is why I posted the play above with the illegal fwd pass that was completed in the end zone. Without the runoff, Team A gets to take advantage of the foul and get time for another play. If the illegal fwd pass is simply incomplete, it seems fair to do the runoff under the "intent" of the rule change.
-
Two other wrinkles.
Suppose the quarterback throws his illegal pass with 1:01 remaining, but it doesn't fall incomplete until 0:59. Does the 10-second runoff apply? If not, whose call is that? Current mechanics - I dryly note - do not specify which official should be watching the game clock while the ball is live. Would this be reviewable?
What if a foul causes the clock to stop in conjunction with another foul? 3rd and 1 at the A-30. QB A11 runs back and forth looking for receivers. He gives up and spikes the ball (forward) at the A-28. 0:55 remains in the 4th quarter. During the down, receiver A88 illegally blocked below the waist at the A-34. Can Team B have both the 15 yards and the 10-second runoff? Or must they accept the IG if they want the runoff?
-
Two other wrinkles.
Suppose the quarterback throws his illegal pass with 1:01 remaining, but it doesn't fall incomplete until 0:59. Does the 10-second runoff apply? If not, whose call is that? Current mechanics - I dryly note - do not specify which official should be watching the game clock while the ball is live. Would this be reviewable?
What if a foul causes the clock to stop in conjunction with another foul? 3rd and 1 at the A-30. QB A11 runs back and forth looking for receivers. He gives up and spikes the ball (forward) at the A-28. 0:55 remains in the 4th quarter. During the down, receiver A88 illegally blocked below the waist at the A-34. Can Team B have both the 15 yards and the 10-second runoff? Or must they accept the IG if they want the runoff?
Good questions. I'm sure it will be the time on the clock at the end of the play that dictates. If the QB wants to end the play illegally without the risk of the 10-second runoff, he'll have to get it done before 0:59 (2nd or 4th periods).
As I read the current wording, by declining the penalty, they also decline the time runoff. So, yes, they'd have to decline the BBW and accept the ING (or IFP) to get the runoff.
That's how I read it, today. The "good news" is that it will be easier for the QB to end the play legally, since he just has to get the ball "in the area" of an eligible receiver. So this specific play will be less common.
-
I'm sure it will be the time on the clock at the end of the play that dictates.
IF (and I have no idea if it will be) it is like the NFL, the exact opposite is true: it's the time at the START of the play that determines what rules are in effect. This makes it much easier to officiate, as which official is assigned to be watching the clock DURING the play?
With a rule like this, the NCAA is on it's way to a two minute warning, where rules such as this go into effect.
-
IF (and I have no idea if it will be) it is like the NFL, the exact opposite is true: it's the time at the START of the play that determines what rules are in effect. This makes it much easier to officiate, as which official is assigned to be watching the clock DURING the play?
With a rule like this, the NCAA is on it's way to a two minute warning, where rules such as this go into effect.
It's easier to go by the time at the end of the play- it's displayed on the scoreboard.
-
IF (and I have no idea if it will be) it is like the NFL, the exact opposite is true: it's the time at the START of the play that determines what rules are in effect. This makes it much easier to officiate, as which official is assigned to be watching the clock DURING the play?
But a 2-minute warning won't help us with a rule that doesn't become effective until less than 1-minute. I don't think we should have somebody watching the game clock when the snap is imminent. Mechanics aside, I don't believe it is fair to allow a player to illegally stop the clock at 0:55 without suffering the time runoff when the play started at 1:01, yet we'd have to impose the runoff if the play started at 0:59.
My Monopoly money is on the time at the end of the play.
-
But a 2-minute warning won't help us with a rule that doesn't become effective until less than 1-minute. I don't think we should have somebody watching the game clock when the snap is imminent.
Which is why I said the NCAA may well be on the way to a 2 minute warning, or something like it.
In the NFL, the 2:00 warning isn't just another TV time out. The officials meet to make sure all agree on TO's, etc. and to let the teams know that certain rules now go into effect. They don't go into effect until AFTER the 2:00 warning. If the play starts at 2:01, and ends at 1:52, a foul that would have a ten second runoff does NOT get run off because at the time the play started, those rules weren't yet in effect. The issue of someone watching the clock at the snap isn't an issue because the clock is always stopped when these rules go into effect.
The NCAA may well be different. I think they will find over time that if they are going to have a ten second run off rule, it might be better to do it in the last two minutes, not just the last minute. They may do it based on the clock at the end of the play, although that doesn't feel right either for a foul that was committed at 1:01, but the clock didn't stop until 0:59. It wasn't a runoff when he committed the foul, but only became one because of when the play ended.
-
They may do it based on the clock at the end of the play, although that doesn't feel right either for a foul that was committed at 1:01, but the clock didn't stop until 0:59. It wasn't a runoff when he committed the foul, but only became one because of when the play ended.
That foul didn't cause the clock to stop so we wouldn't run off 10 seconds anyway.
-
That foul didn't cause the clock to stop so we wouldn't run off 10 seconds anyway.
Just to make sure we are on the same play:
QB crosses the NZ, sees he is about to be tackled inbounds, he has no time outs remaining, so he throws an incomplete Illegal Forward Pass (or one complete in the end zone).
There are those that are saying that this foul was committed with the intent of stopping the clock illegally, and therefore the runoff should apply.
I agree, the FOUL did not stop the clock, but the result of the play stopped it. And while that's true, the intent of the foul was certainly to stop the clock.
I hope the NCAA is as specific as the NFL, and makes judgment of intent less of an issue. The NFL lists the specific fouls which cause a runoff:
(a) a foul by either team that prevents the snap (i.e., false start, encroachment, etc.)
(b) intentional grounding;
(c) an illegal forward pass thrown from beyond the line of scrimmage;
(d) throwing a backward pass out of bounds;
(e) spiking or throwing the ball in the field of play after a down has ended, except after
a touchdown; or
(f) any other intentional foul that causes the clock to stop
Ironically, none of those would have caused a ten second runoff in the Music City Bowl, which was the final straw in getting this issue to the table.
-
I have said it twice and will say so again....this change would have helped in the Music City Bowl. The foul was for 12 in the formation which SHOULD have caused clock to stop. The runoff would have ended the game then and there.
-
Just to make sure we are on the same play.
I was on your play where you said the guy fouled at 1:01 and the play ended at 0:59.
-
I have said it twice and will say so again....this change would have helped in the Music City Bowl. The foul was for 12 in the formation which SHOULD have caused clock to stop. The runoff would have ended the game then and there.
An INTENTIONAL foul that causes the clock to stop.
It is patently clear that there was nothing intentional about that foul. The kicking team thought they were coming on the field, the QB thought they were spiking the ball. And while the foul SHOULD have stopped the clock, it didn't, the spike stopped the clock.
-
We know what the intent of this rule change is and on that, this IS a runoff situation.
-
An INTENTIONAL foul that causes the clock to stop.
It is patently clear that there was nothing intentional about that foul. The kicking team thought they were coming on the field, the QB thought they were spiking the ball. And while the foul SHOULD have stopped the clock, it didn't, the spike stopped the clock.
Also, with the change that could help in this play was the one regarding all 11 players not coming to a 1 sec pause at some point prior to the snap. If that happens, it is now a false start and under 1:00 would be a 10 sec. runoff. I don't recall if all of them came to a stop, but some were running off so it's possible we should be shutting this down as well.
-
An INTENTIONAL foul that causes the clock to stop.
It is patently clear that there was nothing intentional about that foul. The kicking team thought they were coming on the field, the QB thought they were spiking the ball. And while the foul SHOULD have stopped the clock, it didn't, the spike stopped the clock.
*Any* foul under 1 minute with the clock running that prevents the snap will include a 10 second run-off assuming it's not declined or the offense doesn't use a timeout.
Had the officials killed the play prior to the snap for 12 players in formation in the Music City Bowl, then it would indeed have invoked a 10 second runoff. Since they ruled illegal substitution, then the ball did become live and there would have been no 10 second runoff.
Other not-so-obvious fouls that could create a 10 second runoff:
12 men in the huddle
An unsportsmanlike foul during the dead ball period with the clock running (player spikes the ball).
Note: The NFL 2 minute warning is irrelevant with respect to fouls that create a 10 second runoff. It is relevant with respect to injuries after the two minute warning with the clock running.
Also, the time on the game clock when the pre-snap foul occurs or the time on the clock when the ball becomes dead when ING or IFP occur during the play will be used to determine whether a 10 second runoff applies.
-
*Any* foul under 1 minute with the clock running that prevents the snap will include a 10 second run-off assuming it's not declined or the offense doesn't use a timeout.
Had the officials killed the play prior to the snap for 12 players in formation in the Music City Bowl, then it would indeed have invoked a 10 second runoff. Since they ruled illegal substitution, then the ball did become live and there would have been no 10 second runoff.
Other not-so-obvious fouls that could create a 10 second runoff:
12 men in the huddle
An unsportsmanlike foul during the dead ball period with the clock running (player spikes the ball).
Note: The NFL 2 minute warning is irrelevant with respect to fouls that create a 10 second runoff. It is relevant with respect to injuries after the two minute warning with the clock running.
Also, the time on the game clock when the pre-snap foul occurs or the time on the clock when the ball becomes dead when ING or IFP occur during the play will be used to determine whether a 10 second runoff applies.
I am on your page.
-
An INTENTIONAL foul that causes the clock to stop.
It is patently clear that there was nothing intentional about that foul. The kicking team thought they were coming on the field, the QB thought they were spiking the ball. And while the foul SHOULD have stopped the clock, it didn't, the spike stopped the clock.
Actually what happened was that "time expired" IR stepped in to review and then reported there should be 1 second left but they also picked up that there were 12 in the fomation and that newly identified foul was enforced. Since they discovered that they could have esily justified, under the new rule, the runoff.
It is clear from Redding's statement, the rule change is supposed to apply to the Music City Bowl situation:
http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/2011/feb/13/new-rule-from-vols-misfortune/?print
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/campusrivalry/post/2011/02/colleges-going-to-10-second-runoff-rule-for-penalty-at-end-of-halves-like-nfl/1
-
Based on what you have presented here, you have supported your case that the intent of the rule means it should have applied to the Music City Bowl.
But I'm not sure the actual wording of the rule supports that position. Look at the list in the rule:
(a) Any foul that prevents the snap (e.g., false start, encroachment, defensive offside by contact in the neutral zone, etc.);
- The UNC foul didn't prevent the snap, they snapped the ball
(b) Intentional grounding to stop the clock;
- Not applicable
(c) Illegal forward pass thrown from beyond the neutral zone;
- Not applicable
(d) Backward pass thrown out of bounds to stop the clock;
- Not applicable
(e) Any other foul committed with the intent of stopping the clock.
- The foul wasn't made with the intent of stopping the clock
So if the purpose of the rule was to create a 10 second runoff here, the rule needs rewriting. An example given of a foul that would not cause a runoff was an Illegal Formation, because it doesn't stop the clock. In this case, there was not a foul that stopped the clock, the spiked ball stopped the clock, and the flag came because there were still more than 12 men on the field during the play.
I know, IR then reviewed the play. But their ability to overrule the call is limited to the number of men on the field during a LIVE ball. They cannot rule they play should have been shut down prior to the snap for 12 men, they can only rule on how many were there during the live ball. Since the ball was live, the incomplete pass stopped the clock, not the foul, and this play falls into the same category as the Illegal Formation foul that does NOT get a 10 second runoff.
So to say, “IR says the play SHOULD have been shut down for a foul” doesn’t matter, IR can’t make that ruling.
There is an easy answer here: if the offense (without a timeout) commits a foul in the last minute of a half while the clock was running, there will be a 10 second runoff, period.
Look, I’m not arguing about what SHOULD have happened, or, given the proof you showed, what their intent was. I’m just showing there is a logical argument that says they didn’t fix that specific example with this rule.
-
I see a dilemma.
1/10, B-30, A=20, B=21, clock running, A has exhausted their T/Os. Team A has 12 guys on the field for more than 3 three seconds, so the crew properly shuts it down with 0:09 (4th) on the game clock, and penalizes A for Illegal Substitution, and announces game over. Ouch.
Lets say the crew didn't get 'em counted before the snap, or they weren't out there more than 3 seconds before the snap, and A11 throws complete to A88 at the B-1 (down in the field of play), 0:09 (4th). Penalize, but no run off, clock starts on ready. During penalty enforcement, A gets their FG team on, snaps at 0:02, kicks successful FG, wins.
No difference in what Team A did, but very different outcomes.
Of course, this assumes that a substitution foul will qualify as "intent to stop the clock." Maybe it won't.
What's a zebra to do?
-
El Mackman:
Your later case is essentially what happened in the Music City Bowl. The officials called a live ball foul that did not cause the clock to stop. Under the wording of the rule, no runoff. Under the Rogers comments that TxMike has posted, he's saying it should be a runoff. And that is my dilemma: what Rogers has said, and what the rule says aren't the same thing, and the Music City play and the play you posted show that.
-
It is all stil very fuzzy, so I'm not really arguing with anybody on this. But, the story was full of errors, so I'm not putting much stock in it.
Example:
"Under the proposed change, if an offensive team commits a penalty that stops the clock (generally false-start, illegal-substitution, illegal-participation or illegal-formation penalties),..."
Since when does an illegal formation stop the clock? Or illegal participation?
Indeed, it would be nice if they just declared that ANY penalty with less then some amount of time remaining (I say 30-seconds - 1 minute is not that "critical") would qualify. Take all judgment or 'procedural' questions out of it. Teams will know they will have to be 'clean' to get a play off successfully in the last "x" amount of time. That would work better, IMHO. I doubt I'll be consulted, though. :)