Author Topic: Rules you would change if you could....  (Read 1240 times)

Offline OSU65

  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-0
Rules you would change if you could....
« on: June 23, 2018, 05:46:31 PM »
When I retired I started playing golf. I had no idea about the rules, but I decided to educate myself. The rules themselves aren't overwhelming, but the "Decisions Of Golf" that amplify the rules is about 2 inches thick. For example; What is the rule if your golf ball comes to rest in a half eaten orange?; What is the status of saliva ( a big goober ) on the putting green?

1. I suspect that college football also has a decisions book that expands on the actual rules. What are the most arcane rules you have actually had to call in during a game, and did you get it right?

2. The USGA has made some adjustments to the rules of golf that will take effect in Jan 19. I think the general intent is to simplify them in order to speed up the game. An example would be that it will no longer be a penalty if your ball strikes the flag while putting from the green. What rules changes/decisions would you like to see made to college football to speed up the game, and lower the number of penalties during a game? NONE is an acceptable answer!

Offline Etref

  • Moderator
  • ***
  • Posts: 1738
  • FAN REACTION: +60/-22
  • " I don't make the rules coach!"
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #1 on: June 23, 2018, 08:43:38 PM »
With the prolific expanse of the passing game, I would have the game clock start on the ready after an incomplete pass!
" I don't make the rules coach!"

Offline scrounge

  • *
  • Posts: 180
  • FAN REACTION: +28/-19
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2018, 09:59:39 PM »
The number one change I would make is to keep the clock running on first downs inbounds. It's not really necessary with a 40 sec play clock under normal circumstances, it will speed up the game in a way that no one would notice, as well as reduce exposure for player safety. The number of plays being run in the college game, especially at the elite D1 level, is crazy with today's speed up offenses.

Offline bossman72

  • *
  • Posts: 1279
  • FAN REACTION: +65/-22
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2018, 07:40:50 AM »
I don't like the 10 sec runoff rules and other clock rules / penalties being cancelled by getting a first down in bounds. A first down is a natural part of the game and should not affect those rules.

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #4 on: June 26, 2018, 03:27:39 AM »
I would also support keeping the clock running on a 1st down inbounds. If that is the case, the R does not need to give the "ready-for-play, start the clock" signal after the ball is set on a 1st down. This would also be consistent with NFL practice, and might convince the high school level to keep the clock running on a 1st down.

I would also change the blocking below the waist rule to prohibit anyone but a lineman (both interior linemen and ends) within the tackle box from blocking below the waist. This would vastly simplify enforcement of that rule for wing officials and umpires.
« Last Edit: June 26, 2018, 03:29:11 AM by ilyazhito »

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 670
  • FAN REACTION: +53/-44
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #5 on: June 26, 2018, 10:00:00 AM »
6-2-11 and 6-3-12.
These two rules were put in place to keep a kicking team player from running into a team area and disappearing, and then re-appearing from out of bounds to get involved  with the ball returning to the ground or interfering with a returner.  That part of the rule is good.  But, I believe an unintended consequence is that it prevents such an A player from legitimately recovering a ball in B's end zone. 
This actually happened.
A's high punt lands at the B-20, and is bounding when it is touched by B80.  The ball continues toward and into B's end zone.  A88 (who has been inbounds the entire down) is pursuing the ball and his momentum carries him across the end line.  The ball is near the end line (still in the end zone) when A88 returns inbounds and recovers the ball.  The covering officials rule TD for Team A.
Unfortunately, the ruling was incorrect, because A88 had gone out of bounds during the down.  And the awarding of a score in error is a "catastrophic" error.  Thankfully, it was not me, but it happened.

I don't believe a player that goes OB from the end zone should be restricted in his ability to touch the ball.  No such player gains any sort of positional advantage by going OB from the end zone.
I'd like to see the rule changed to say, "No player of team A that goes out of bounds between the goal lines during a scrimmage kick down may return inbounds during the down."  Same for free kicks: "No player of team A that goes out of bounds between the goal lines during a free kick down may return inbounds during the down."

Robert


Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +108/-4
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #6 on: June 26, 2018, 11:03:13 PM »
I would also support keeping the clock running on a 1st down inbounds. If that is the case, the R does not need to give the "ready-for-play, start the clock" signal after the ball is set on a 1st down. This would also be consistent with NFL practice, and might convince the high school level to keep the clock running on a 1st down.

I would also change the blocking below the waist rule to prohibit anyone but a lineman (both interior linemen and ends) within the tackle box from blocking below the waist. This would vastly simplify enforcement of that rule for wing officials and umpires.
Our D3 games last 2:40-2:45 on average (no TV or replay) while FBS games last 3:20-3:30. The main difference is TV time outs and replay. Keeping the clock going on first downs in bounds may shorten games by 5 or 10 minutes at most, but the length of the game is not an issue outside of TV games. I wouldn't short the players the opportunity to play.

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 49
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-5
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #7 on: July 01, 2018, 06:19:00 AM »
I get that players want to play, and stopping the clock on first downs does extend the game for 5-10 additional minutes. However, why are many white hats insistent on having the box man at the spot quickly, so they can wind the game clock on a first down? It seems contradictory that the rule effectively pauses the game for first downs (other than the NFL), but many white hats want to dispense with the pause as much as possible.

Re: BBW, what do you guys think about my proposed change?

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 670
  • FAN REACTION: +53/-44
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #8 on: July 01, 2018, 09:27:14 AM »
...However, why are many white hats insistent on having the box man at the spot quickly, so they can wind the game clock on a first down? It seems contradictory that the rule effectively pauses the game for first downs (other than the NFL), but many white hats want to dispense with the pause as much as possible.

I donít believe it has anything to do with the box or chains, specifically.  It has to do with the fact that, with the advent of the 40-second play clock in 2008, the game was changed dramatically, permitting teams to utilize true hurry-up offenses.  Beginning then, teams had, and have, the right to expect the ball to be spotted and ready for play as effectively and efficiently as possible.  Thatís the reason there is no - or should be no - Ďpause.í  Thatís the reason the CFO directed crews to target ď32Ē on the play clock as the point within the play clock countdown by which the ball should be spotted, and, if all other conditions are met, ready for play.  Yes, that is a Ďtarget,í and mitigating factors may delay that.  But crews that canít hit that target routinely have been known to draw severe criticism from their coordinators.

And thatís when and why chain crews had to become more mobile.  The box man, in particular, needs to be able to hustle - no less than the on-field crews - to get to the succeeding spot before the next snap.  The on-field crew is not expected to wait on the chains.  If the box man wonít be there before the next snap, the crew may want to interrupt the clock(s), set the PC to 25, then restart when the box is set.  But, the only time this should be an issue is when Team A is awarded a new series, and even then, only if there is a huge gain on the previous play.  The teams are expected to provide chain crews that can get the job done.

Robert


Offline Magician

  • *
  • Posts: 525
  • FAN REACTION: +108/-4
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #9 on: July 05, 2018, 01:13:06 AM »
I donít believe it has anything to do with the box or chains, specifically.  It has to do with the fact that, with the advent of the 40-second play clock in 2008, the game was changed dramatically, permitting teams to utilize true hurry-up offenses.  Beginning then, teams had, and have, the right to expect the ball to be spotted and ready for play as effectively and efficiently as possible.  Thatís the reason there is no - or should be no - Ďpause.í  Thatís the reason the CFO directed crews to target ď32Ē on the play clock as the point within the play clock countdown by which the ball should be spotted, and, if all other conditions are met, ready for play.  Yes, that is a Ďtarget,í and mitigating factors may delay that.  But crews that canít hit that target routinely have been known to draw severe criticism from their coordinators.

And thatís when and why chain crews had to become more mobile.  The box man, in particular, needs to be able to hustle - no less than the on-field crews - to get to the succeeding spot before the next snap.  The on-field crew is not expected to wait on the chains.  If the box man wonít be there before the next snap, the crew may want to interrupt the clock(s), set the PC to 25, then restart when the box is set.  But, the only time this should be an issue is when Team A is awarded a new series, and even then, only if there is a huge gain on the previous play.  The teams are expected to provide chain crews that can get the job done.

Robert
The game clock starting and the ball being ready for play after a first down or run OOB are two different things. Most Rs I work with try to windy around 34 or 35 outside of the last couple minutes of each half. The ball is ready for play any time between 28 and 32 95% of the time. The ball isn't ready for play until the U or C step away from the ball. He/she doesn't do that until every official is ready to officiate the play. Even the fastest hurry up offenses rarely snap it above 30.

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 670
  • FAN REACTION: +53/-44
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #10 on: July 05, 2018, 10:56:43 AM »
The game clock starting and the ball being ready for play after a first down or run OOB are two different things. Most Rs I work with try to windy around 34 or 35 outside of the last couple minutes of each half. The ball is ready for play any time between 28 and 32 95% of the time. The ball isn't ready for play until the U or C step away from the ball. He/she doesn't do that until every official is ready to officiate the play. Even the fastest hurry up offenses rarely snap it above 30.

We are absolutely on the same page.
Robert

Offline Joe Stack

  • *
  • Posts: 567
  • FAN REACTION: +31/-43
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #11 on: July 19, 2018, 03:30:03 PM »
I would make it to where the only times the ready is given without the clock starting is on a) new possessions, b) after a TO and c) other situations to correct an equitable situation (i.e. abuse of timing rules). The whole clock stops on incomplete passes and doesn't start until the snap thing goes back to the days where teams pass 5-7 times a game COLLECTIVELY. We've been out of that cave for decades. Then I would add a 2 minute warning to each half.

I would also add a 40 point mercy rule much like TAPPS. 30 point for subvarsity -- at least in the 4th quarter.

Not a rule change but a CLEAR directive: the time between the end of a try and the kickoff is not a timeout but an intermission. One that should take no more than 40 seconds. The 40 second clock should start at the end of the try down and at the end of that 40, the ready for play (25) should be whistled immediately. It is a little different than the use of normal time clock procedures but there's no reason why we can't do this. My goodness, teams huddle prior to all kickoffs like they've never done it before. They score 10 TDs in a game, they still huddle.

Offline OSU65

  • *
  • Posts: 48
  • FAN REACTION: +65535/-0
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #12 on: August 21, 2018, 04:41:16 PM »
What is the rationale behind the rule change that occasionally results in a game ending with time on the clock? I think it only occurs when there are 10 seconds or less on the clock, and the team that commits the penalty does not have a remaining timeout. The rule change has detracted from the fan excitement near the end of the game. It's almost like there's a lot of excitement and then all of a sudden the refs run off the field, the clock goes to zero, and the announcer says game over. I'm sure that teams were "gaming" the system and the change is designed to stop that, but fans want certainty and not a vague, "what happened".

Anyone else dislike the rule change?

Online JasonTX

  • *
  • Posts: 2053
  • FAN REACTION: +78/-24
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #13 on: August 21, 2018, 07:04:11 PM »
What is the rationale behind the rule change that occasionally results in a game ending with time on the clock? I think it only occurs when there are 10 seconds or less on the clock, and the team that commits the penalty does not have a remaining timeout. The rule change has detracted from the fan excitement near the end of the game. It's almost like there's a lot of excitement and then all of a sudden the refs run off the field, the clock goes to zero, and the announcer says game over. I'm sure that teams were "gaming" the system and the change is designed to stop that, but fans want certainty and not a vague, "what happened".

Anyone else dislike the rule change?

I thought fans knew the rules?  How can they be confused.  ;D

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2752
  • FAN REACTION: +99/-33
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #14 on: August 22, 2018, 01:17:43 AM »
What is the rationale behind the rule change that occasionally results in a game ending with time on the clock? I think it only occurs when there are 10 seconds or less on the clock, and the team that commits the penalty does not have a remaining timeout. The rule change has detracted from the fan excitement near the end of the game. It's almost like there's a lot of excitement and then all of a sudden the refs run off the field, the clock goes to zero, and the announcer says game over. I'm sure that teams were "gaming" the system and the change is designed to stop that, but fans want certainty and not a vague, "what happened".

Anyone else dislike the rule change?

Listening to the referee's announcement should help :) It should be something like: "False start, offense number 55. Five yard penalty from the succeeding spot. As the foul caused the game clock to stop and there is less than one minute remaining in the game, [team B] elected to have ten seconds run off the clock. The game is over."

I like the rule, it lessens the effect of obvious fouls to gain a clock advantage.

Offline Morningrise

  • *
  • Posts: 467
  • FAN REACTION: +18/-5
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #15 on: August 23, 2018, 03:30:46 PM »
What is the rationale behind the rule change that occasionally results in a game ending with time on the clock? I think it only occurs when there are 10 seconds or less on the clock, and the team that commits the penalty does not have a remaining timeout. The rule change has detracted from the fan excitement near the end of the game. It's almost like there's a lot of excitement and then all of a sudden the refs run off the field, the clock goes to zero, and the announcer says game over. I'm sure that teams were "gaming" the system and the change is designed to stop that, but fans want certainty and not a vague, "what happened".

Anyone else dislike the rule change?

It's always nice to know the "why" of a rule.

Imagine: It's fourth down and the clock is running with 0:09 left. The offense is desperately trying to run the field goal unit on for a game-tying "chip shot" field goal. It's fourth down so they can't spike the ball - they've GOT to get the field goal off. But the holder is late getting on the field. Disaster! So with 0:05 left, one of the linemen "accidentally" commits a false start. The officials stop the clock and dutifully march them back five yards. But that's still an easily makeable field goal - and in the meantime, before the referee resumes the game again at 0:05, the field goal unit has had plenty of time to get all set up. They kick the field goal and the defense is HACKED. A strategic foul bought them all the time in the world.

That's what the ten-second runoff is for. It tries to remove the benefit of committing fouls (whether intentional or just a happy accident) in time-critical situations. Ten seconds is intended to be a rough approximation of how much time would have been lost if the foul hadn't happened.

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 693
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-10
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #16 on: August 27, 2018, 09:52:48 AM »
It's always nice to know the "why" of a rule.

Imagine: It's fourth down and the clock is running with 0:09 left. The offense is desperately trying to run the field goal unit on for a game-tying "chip shot" field goal. It's fourth down so they can't spike the ball - they've GOT to get the field goal off. But the holder is late getting on the field. Disaster! So with 0:05 left, one of the linemen "accidentally" commits a false start. The officials stop the clock and dutifully march them back five yards. But that's still an easily makeable field goal - and in the meantime, before the referee resumes the game again at 0:05, the field goal unit has had plenty of time to get all set up. They kick the field goal and the defense is HACKED. A strategic foul bought them all the time in the world.

That's what the ten-second runoff is for. It tries to remove the benefit of committing fouls (whether intentional or just a happy accident) in time-critical situations. Ten seconds is intended to be a rough approximation of how much time would have been lost if the foul hadn't happened.

That's one reason. Another one is that :10 is usually the amount of time that runs off from when a play is declared dead to when the ball is next snapped. Hurry up offense, of course, makes this number lower but on avg, :10 is about right. So if you have the game clock running and you have a play end in-bounds at :37, the next play will normally start at about :27 anyway. If you have holding that makes the game clock stop at :37, you've given the team behind in the score an extra :10 to make the game-tying or winning play because they fouled. That's not right.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 2866
  • FAN REACTION: +71/-101
  • High School (MA)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #17 on: August 27, 2018, 10:36:11 AM »
  ...... If you have holding that makes the game clock stop at :37, you've given the team behind in the score an extra :10 to make the game-tying or winning play because they fouled. That's not right.

Does a holding penalty against Team A during a "10 second runoff time"  actually carry the option of a 10 second runoff for the offended team?
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 10:37:54 AM by NVFOA_Ump »
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 693
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-10
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #18 on: August 27, 2018, 12:07:23 PM »
Does a holding penalty against Team A during a "10 second runoff time"  actually carry the option of a 10 second runoff for the offended team?

A2/9 @ B45. Score A13-B14. :42 remaining in the 4Q with the clock running. A22 receives the handoff from A12 and runs around the right side to the B42 where he is tackled in bounds. Right Tackle A73 held B62 at the LOS.


Offline Sonofanump

  • *
  • Posts: 255
  • FAN REACTION: +5/-3
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #19 on: August 27, 2018, 12:08:51 PM »
A2/9 @ B45. Score A13-B14. :42 remaining in the 4Q with the clock running. A22 receives the handoff from A12 and runs around the right side to the B42 where he is tackled in bounds. Right Tackle A73 held B62 at the LOS.

Not immediately

Offline clearwall

  • *
  • Posts: 693
  • FAN REACTION: +13/-10
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #20 on: August 27, 2018, 01:03:48 PM »
.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2018, 01:17:36 PM by clearwall »

Offline ElvisLives

  • *
  • Posts: 670
  • FAN REACTION: +53/-44
  • The rules are there if you need them.
Re: Rules you would change if you could....
« Reply #21 on: August 27, 2018, 02:00:12 PM »
I can be a bit dense, but I'm not seeing an answer, yet.  Inside the last 2 minutes of a half, if the team AHEAD in score commits a foul, the offended team may elect to start the clock on the RFP signal, or the snap.  In this case, it wasn't the team ahead in score, so normal rules apply.  The clock would start on the RFP signal (no option).

Regarding the 10-second subtraction, that applies (at the option of the offended team) to fouls in the last one minute of the half that CAUSE the clock to stop, like false starts, illegal incomplete passes, etc.  A holding foul does not qualify, unless you judge that it was deliberately committed to stop the clock.  I suppose it could happen, but it would have to scream "LOOK AT ME - I'M HOLDING THIS GUY ON PURPOSE TO STOP THE CLOCK (EVEN THOUGH OUR RUNNING BACK IS ADVANCING FOR A TD)."  Really?

So, in the scenario offered, the clocks simply obey standard clock rules.

Robert