:40 Play Clock after B Fouls

[zebrastripes]

Are crews / play clock operators in your area correctly setting the play clock to :40 after fouls committed by the defense? I have noticed in my area that a bunch of people either flat out don’t know or don’t care to correctly apply the rule.

In practical terms, this rule really only makes sense when (1) the game clock will start on the ready and (2) A would otherwise not be able to consume a full 40 seconds between plays. Having to go to a :40 play clock after a B encroachment foul is stupid regardless of the status of the game clock. I would support dumping this rule and going to a consistent :25 after all penalty administration, the way it used to be and the way it is at the other levels.

[ncwingman]

It's a struggle, yes. However, it's hardly the only issue with play clock operators. If the play clock operator is bad enough that it's a problem, I have no qualms about just "firing" them and keeping it on the field.

I don't feel the need to rewrite the rule book since the problem is that it's some volunteer parent doing it, not an official. If we change the rules, they won't know those rules either.

[zebrastripes]

For the record, I was running a plsy clock earlier this year and in every instance where B had an injury or foul, the R would pump me DOWN from :40 to :25 incorrectly. It’s not just the volunteer operators who don’t know the rule.

[bama_stripes]

The problem I notice more frequently is the PCO setting to :40 when B commits a dead-ball foul after a COP or timeout.  Team A was only entitled to :25, and the foul doesn’t change that.

[Steely Dan]

If there's a foul or injury by B, we do 25 if game clock is on the snap and 40 if game clock on the ready.  I don't know if that's textbook or not, but that's how they teach it here (New Orleans area).  Clock operators are mostly rookie officials and typically clueless, so to expect them to decipher the upcoming game clock status and then set the play clock accordingly is a bit of a stretch.....  White hat usually pumps one or two hands to guide them as well.

[zebrastripes]

The problem I notice more frequently is the PCO setting to :40 when B commits a dead-ball foul after a COP or timeout.  Team A was only entitled to :25, and the foul doesn’t change that.

Yep, the book is clear that :25 supersedes :40 even if some don’t agree. I would still propose just going to :25 after all penalty administration with the option for :40 on B fouls when the game clock is starting on the ready inside of 2:00. We already have the option for the offended team to start the game clock on the snap inside of 2:00, so why would this be any different?

[ncwingman]

If there's a foul or injury by B, we do 25 if game clock is on the snap and 40 if game clock on the ready.  I don't know if that's textbook or not, but that's how they teach it here (New Orleans area).

It is not textbook, no.

Clock operators are mostly rookie officials and typically clueless, so to expect them to decipher the upcoming game clock status and then set the play clock accordingly is a bit of a stretch.....  White hat usually pumps one or two hands to guide them as well.

I don't really begrudge people for not knowing. What really grinds my gears is when they also aren't watching us pump to tell them what to do when it is wrong -- that's when I start to consider "firing" them.

[zebrastripes]

The situation where the rule is really dumb is: game clock running, snap is imminent, B jumps into the neutral zone. Now A gets a new :40 with a running game clock and can potentially eat 1:20 in total dead ball time unless you apply 3-4-6 and hold the GC until the snap.

[ncwingman]

Yep, the book is clear that :25 supersedes :40 even if some don’t agree. I would still propose just going to :25 after all penalty administration with the option for :40 on B fouls when the game clock is starting on the ready inside of 2:00. We already have the option for the offended team to start the game clock on the snap inside of 2:00, so why would this be any different?

I agree that the rule states that :40 is the default, but is set to :25 under certain circumstances - ergo, :25 supersedes :40. However....

bama's scenario: A calls a timeout. After the time out, there's :25 seconds on the play clock. The ball is marked ready for play and the play clock starts running. If B jumps offsides prior to the snap, there is an officials time out under 3-5-7i due to a defensive player, which does not fall under the :25 superseding rule as per 3-6-1(a)-1(e) Exception 2 (man, that just rolls off the tongue...).

The timeout was over. The ball was marked ready for play. The play clock started running and needs reset ... 3-6-1(a)-1(d) no longer applies, because it was just stopped due to the foul, not the timeout.

That being said, I'd support the rule to be changed to reflect what you're saying (or what steely dan was saying, if the game clock is on the ready or not) but I disagree that it is what the rule currently says.

The situation where the rule is really dumb is: game clock running, snap is imminent, B jumps into the neutral zone. Now A gets a new :40 with a running game clock and can potentially eat 1:20 in total dead ball time unless you apply 3-4-6 and hold the GC until the snap.

Maybe the defense shouldn't have jumped into the neutral zone. That's on them. There's lots of dumb rules, but they are the rules.

[bossman72]

The situation where the rule is really dumb is: game clock running, snap is imminent, B jumps into the neutral zone. Now A gets a new :40 with a running game clock and can potentially eat 1:20 in total dead ball time unless you apply 3-4-6 and hold the GC until the snap.

I agree making the clock 40 on B fouls is dumb.

The real reason the clock gets set to 40 is for a B injury.  If that rule didn't exist and we went to 25 for every administrative stoppage, then B can intentionally go down with an injury every play in a 2 minute situation, effectively shortening the time run off between each down by 15 seconds.  Therefore, B injuries go to 40.

I fail to see a scenario where B can intentionally foul to gain a timing advantage like this.  If B fouls right after the play is over, then this will likely give the offense a first down, so the timing advantage is irrelevant.

[Ralph Damren]

In Maine, PCO's are some sort of food . None of our high schook fields have play clocks. BJ does the play clock with a prompt from R on 25" or 40" to be set (touching the roof w/ 1 hand =25", with both hands =40"). BJ then uses the 'poor man's stop-watch' to count down last 5 seconds.

[zebrastripes]

I agree making the clock 40 on B fouls is dumb.

The real reason the clock gets set to 40 is for a B injury.  If that rule didn't exist and we went to 25 for every administrative stoppage, then B can intentionally go down with an injury every play in a 2 minute situation, effectively shortening the time run off between each down by 15 seconds.  Therefore, B injuries go to 40.

I fail to see a scenario where B can intentionally foul to gain a timing advantage like this.  If B fouls right after the play is over, then this will likely give the offense a first down, so the timing advantage is irrelevant.

I have no issues with going to :40 after B injuries or helmet off. That rule makes perfect sense and the fact that FED didn’t initially have that rule when they first instituted the :40 PC demonstrated a complete lack of foresight into the loophole you mentioned. My post is strictly regarding going to :40 after B fouls, not injuries or equipment issues.

On your last point, I also agree. If B fouls right after the play is over and it DOESN’T result in a first down, we can easily solve that by making all PF and UNS fouls by B include an automatic first down. Of course we’d get lip service from FED on why we can’t do this.

[NVFOA_Ump]

On your last point, I also agree. If B fouls right after the play is over and it DOESN’T result in a first down, we can easily solve that by making all PF and UNS fouls by B include an automatic first down. Of course we’d get lip service from FED on why we can’t do this.

And what perceived problem does that solve?