Late Hit at the end of the half

[zebrastripes]

Shaw addressed this situation play #3 of the training video this week. Basically said the crew was wrong to not enforce the penalty without saying they were wrong, and that adding one or two seconds back would have to be an on-field decision and could not come from replay since there were less than 3 seconds and the clock would start on the ready.

https://youtu.be/8QLIwZKLBNU?feature=shared

What I don’t understand is why NCAA doesn’t automatically start the clock on the snap in this situation so as to not give the defense an advantage by fouling. NFHS rules give the offended team the option to start the clock on the snap if it would otherwise start on the ready, any time a foul is committed under two minutes. Seems like a very easy fix to NCAA rules.

[ilyazhito]

The NCAA limits the option to start the clock on the snap to the trailing team. The one exception is if the teams are tied. In that case, both teams are trailing for the purpose of this rule.

[ElvisLives]

And for all those rules geeks this is codified in A.R. 3-5-2-VII.

Now that’s the pot calling the kettle black! 😂
I don’t mind being called a pot or a kettle.

[zebrastripes]

The NCAA limits the option to start the clock on the snap to the trailing team. The one exception is if the teams are tied. In that case, both teams are trailing for the purpose of this rule.

I’m not sure why you’re lecturing me on the rule, as I’m well aware of what it is. What I said was that there should be a modification to the rule, towards the NFHS rule, to prevent this exact situation.

[ilyazhito]

I agree that it is unfortunate, but the rule is what it is.

[bossman72]

What I don’t understand is why NCAA doesn’t automatically start the clock on the snap in this situation so as to not give the defense an advantage by fouling. NFHS rules give the offended team the option to start the clock on the snap if it would otherwise start on the ready, any time a foul is committed under two minutes. Seems like a very easy fix to NCAA rules.

Rogers tried to be cute when he wrote this rule when he didn't need to be.  The way the rule reads is really awkward.  It talks about stopping the clock to enforce a foul (don't have my books handy).  He could have easily said "when the opposing team COMMITS a foul, the other team has the clock option to go on the snap" (paraphrasing).  Would have been less complicated and easier to officiate.

[ilyazhito]

I agree. This would be a logical revision that would allow for an offended team to choose to delay the clock starting to nullify any clock benefit the other team would gain by fouling.

[zebrastripes]

Rogers tried to be cute when he wrote this rule when he didn't need to be.  The way the rule reads is really awkward.  It talks about stopping the clock to enforce a foul (don't have my books handy).  He could have easily said "when the opposing team COMMITS a foul, the other team has the clock option to go on the snap" (paraphrasing).  Would have been less complicated and easier to officiate.

Unsurprising. Happens all the time in NCAA basketball too where they make the language way more confusing than it needs to be.

[ncwingman]

Shaw addressed this situation play #3 of the training video this week. Basically said the crew was wrong to not enforce the penalty without saying they were wrong, and that adding one or two seconds back would have to be an on-field decision and could not come from replay since there were less than 3 seconds and the clock would start on the ready.

Yeah, my takeaway was that they should have either A) put :01 back on the clock, moved the ball forward 15 yards, and then see if the offense could snap the ball before time expired -- or -- B) declare the half over and enforce on the second half kickoff.

What they did instead was to put :01 back on the clock, move the ball 15 yards, then state the offense couldn't possibly get the snap off and the half is over... but then not actually doing those first two things since they declared it moot.

What I didn't like about the video is that it seems like the crew had a choice here. By refusing to say the crew did it wrong, he couldn't clearly state what they should have done. I think the correct call would have been to allow the offense a chance at an additional play with :01 left, but that would have been nice to be more clearly stated.

[zebrastripes]

Yeah, my takeaway was that they should have either A) put :01 back on the clock, moved the ball forward 15 yards, and then see if the offense could snap the ball before time expired -- or -- B) declare the half over and enforce on the second half kickoff.

What they did instead was to put :01 back on the clock, move the ball 15 yards, then state the offense couldn't possibly get the snap off and the half is over... but then not actually doing those first two things since they declared it moot.

What I didn't like about the video is that it seems like the crew had a choice here. By refusing to say the crew did it wrong, he couldn't clearly state what they should have done. I think the correct call would have been to allow the offense a chance at an additional play with :01 left, but that would have been nice to be more clearly stated.

Agreed. I think Shaw tries to toe the line on these videos, but I wish he’d be more clear on his stance sometimes and not worry about hurting the feels of the featured officials.