Should delay be a live ball foul?

[Joe Stack]

I've ALWAYS (and I do mean that -- since I've started watching football) thought delay of game was such an illogical penalty. The (usually) offense delays the game, then we delay it further by stopping the game to enforce the penalty. Is it time to make this a live ball foul, or at least, a live ball foul if its not discovered (or the game is not stopped) until during or after the snap?

I think so, but I ask to see if there would be any issues with this I have not thought about.

[golfingref]

Great point, considering Detroit won their NFL game today after missing a field goal but then getting another chance from five yards back after a delay of game penalty.

[psv]

I like it   I am for it.

[Rulesman]

First issue I see is the offense (with the clock running) never snapping the ball. Kind of difficult to make that a live ball foul when the offense takes the DOG, never snaps the ball, lets the game clock run out. There's a line that has to be drawn somewhere.

[Joe Stack]

That wouldn't be any different than the rule that talks about a ball being on the ground and no player attempting to recover it. The book doesn't say exactly when to kill it -- we use our judgment. If an offensive team has no clear intention of snapping the ball, then we can rule it a dead ball foul.

The current substitution foul is similar -- it can be either live ball or dead ball. Yes, it is an issue that would need to be dealt with, but not a deal killer in my view.

[NVFOA_Ump]

Don't see any real issue here.  The rule (at least the NCAA rule) is pretty clear in that if the play clock hits 0 before the ball is snapped then we have a foul, the game clock stops (if it is running) and the ball simply continues to be dead.  In the NFL game IMO the kicker had to know that the play clock was running out and the play was dead and the even minor impact that had was probably more than enough to throw off his timing.  IMO trying to make DOG a live ball foul creates far more problems than it solves.

[Kalle]

Should all fouls that happen immediately before the snap be live-ball fouls? DOG is no different from FST in this respect.

[bkdow]

Frame by Frame shows the center moving the ball to snap it when the clock shows :01...if the television display of the play clock is synched up properly with the field clock.

[Magician]

Delay of game as a live ball foul is not sensible. It's not for making the game longer. It is for consuming too much time between plays. Don't define the term literally. If a foul occurs that prevents the ball from becoming live (i.e. false start, DOG) it's a dead ball foul and the play never happens.

This sounds like a solution looking for a problem that doesn't exist.

[Joe Stack]

Don't define the term literally

You must be on the basketball rules committee that says an intentional foul has nothing to do with the intent of a player!

How does one define a word if not literally? Does "all" ever vary?

[Rulesman]

How does one define a word if not literally? Does "all" ever vary?

"All" is an absolute. So is 25 seconds.

[Magician]

How does one define a word if not literally?

By the definition in the rule book. Delay of game is defined. Another great example is "defenseless". The rule book definition and library definition are not the same.

[Joe Stack]

Never said the definitions were always the same. But the comment I responded to was to not define the word "literally." It didn't say "don't define the word except as the rules define it."

This, of course, ignores words and terms not defined by the rules.

If a foul occurs that prevents the ball from becoming live (i.e. false start, DOG) it's a dead ball foul and the play never happens.

Have you read the current substitution rules and how infractions could be either live ball or dead ball? Your example is not absolute. I'm simply suggesting we take a look at something that might improve the flow of the game. If a snap doesn't happen or is nowhere near immenent, then yeah, we would shut the play down just like we declare a loose ball that no one attempts to recover dead. Its pretty simple, actually.

[Kalle]

Have you read the current substitution rules and how infractions could be either live ball or dead ball? Your example is not absolute. I'm simply suggesting we take a look at something that might improve the flow of the game. If a snap doesn't happen or is nowhere near immenent, then yeah, we would shut the play down just like we declare a loose ball that no one attempts to recover dead. Its pretty simple, actually.

You are right that this rule is arbitrary and could easily be changed. But, it would then add an additional burden for officials to determine if the snap is imminent or not. I much prefer the current system where there is no judgement needed.

[Joe Stack]

DOG is no different from FST in this respect.

False starts often put the defense at a tremendous disadvantage. Defender is looking back toward the ball, waiting for the snap, receiver takes off too early, defender plays catch up. If we let this go, defender might feel the need to grab a receiver to prevent a long play -- hence, you have a situation where you could arguably have offsetting fouls AS A RESULT of the first foul by Team A. You don't have that with DOG.

I'm not saying this would happen a lot or even every game. Just pointing out that DOG IS a different type of foul than other dead ball fouls. I will concede that it would be a little harder to differentiate when to make this a dead ball foul and when to make it a live ball foul than the current substitution foul situation.

Just a thought. Good discussion.