Author Topic: Intentional grounding clock administration  (Read 1190 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #25 on: September 09, 2019, 06:53:05 AM »
There is rule support for ending the game, in the extraordinarily rare situations where you feel - as this may - that the illegal act rose to be an Unfair Act under Rule 9.

*9.9.1 SITUATION A:

A is trailing by five points near the end of the fourth period and has no time-outs left when the play ends on B's 3. The referee does not feel there is any illegal delay in unpiling and that time will definitely expire before the ball is ready and A gets in position to snap. Quarterback A1 reaches into the pile of players and grabs the ball. He then throws the ball to midfield.

RULING: Even if the referee imposes a 15-yard penalty for an unsportsmanlike act, A has accomplished its goal – the game clock is stopped and it can get in position and be ready to run a play even though the game clock will start on the ready-for-play signal. This situation illustrates when it is appropriate for the referee to invoke the unfair-act rule and handle the situation in any way that the referee feels is equitable. In this specific situation the referee should wind the clock and end the game without giving A an opportunity to put the ball in play.

COMMENT: The rule also gives the referee authority to take appropriate action whenever someone not subject to the rules hinders play. (3-4-6)
*drops mic*


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Offline prab

  • *
  • Posts: 647
  • FAN REACTION: +35/-45
  • Wherever you go, there you are!
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2019, 09:32:33 AM »
But the proscribed penalty just isn’t enough to offset the advantage of getting to run a play that A wouldn’t have been able to run if they hadn’t fouled (“cheated” in local patois).

Surely we agree that this falls under the category of an inequity caused by abuse of the timing rules.

+1 for first use of "patois" on the forum. 

Offline FLAHL

  • *
  • Posts: 899
  • FAN REACTION: +52/-9
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #27 on: September 09, 2019, 11:33:15 AM »
+1 for first use of "patois" on the forum. 

I thought he meant outdoor seating areas, as in "Sometimes we have our post game meals inside the restaurants, other times we sit outside on the patios."   pi1eOn

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #28 on: September 09, 2019, 11:51:22 AM »



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline HLinNC

  • *
  • Posts: 2448
  • FAN REACTION: +72/-13
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #29 on: September 09, 2019, 03:43:19 PM »
 There is quite a bit of difference between the QB grabbing a dead ball and intentionally heaving it downfield vs a fairly ordinary live ball IG foul.  And just how was it that A gets in "position to snap" yet there is still a pile of players to untangle.

With the yardage penalty AND R winding on the RFP with :02 left would A really be successful?  In this scenario, I would be winding RFP as soon as the umpire sets the ball down.  We don't really know until the players decide one way or the other if the snap gets off or not.

Congrats, you've inserted yourself into the game and chosen Team B as victor over Team A. 

Offline ncwingman

  • *
  • Posts: 718
  • FAN REACTION: +39/-2
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #30 on: September 09, 2019, 04:27:42 PM »
There is quite a bit of difference between the QB grabbing a dead ball and intentionally heaving it downfield vs a fairly ordinary live ball IG foul.  And just how was it that A gets in "position to snap" yet there is still a pile of players to untangle.

With the yardage penalty AND R winding on the RFP with :02 left would A really be successful?  In this scenario, I would be winding RFP as soon as the umpire sets the ball down.  We don't really know until the players decide one way or the other if the snap gets off or not.

Congrats, you've inserted yourself into the game and chosen Team B as victor over Team A.

This is also why I'm very much against any sort of mandatory runoff.

With the clock running, late in a close rivalry game, it's not uncommon for some 16 year old kid to have adrenaline and nerves get the better of him and he false starts -- it's not a conscious decision to save time, it's a nervous kid flinching. There's no need to run off 10 seconds and potentially end the game over an honest mistake like that.

If it's egregiously unsporting, like the case book play mentioned, that's different and we have the ability to start the clock and prevent a snap -- but it would have to be blatant, egregious and obvious (all three) for me to justify doing that.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #31 on: September 09, 2019, 04:27:43 PM »
I guess you can build a straw man argument on just about anything. The point is that there is valid rules support for ending the game without allowing A to snap. While that is inserting ourselves into the game, it’s not necessarily unfair. As to who decided the outcome, A did that when they ran a play that didn’t work. Or maybe B decided it by successfully defending the play. To allow A to successfully manipulate a loophole in the rule would be the unfair thing to do.  I agree these two situations are different, but are similar in that while we are enforcing the IG, A could theoretically get into position to snap the ball while we are signaling the foul or setting the down box, etc. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #32 on: September 09, 2019, 04:34:42 PM »
This is also why I'm very much against any sort of mandatory runoff.

With the clock running, late in a close rivalry game, it's not uncommon for some 16 year old kid to have adrenaline and nerves get the better of him and he false starts -- it's not a conscious decision to save time, it's a nervous kid flinching. There's no need to run off 10 seconds and potentially end the game over an honest mistake like that.

If it's egregiously unsporting, like the case book play mentioned, that's different and we have the ability to start the clock and prevent a snap -- but it would have to be blatant, egregious and obvious (all three) for me to justify doing that.

This is a great point. It is contradicting to be for a mandatory runoff and opposed to the suggested way of ending the game as posted by those of us who believe it to be valid. a 10-second runoff is no doubt inserting ourselves into the game to prevent a perceived unfair advantage of a foul. I'm like NC - the problem with the runoff is the UNFAIR consequence for an UNINTENDED action.

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #33 on: September 09, 2019, 08:35:35 PM »
In NCAA, 10-second runoffs are hardwired into the rules, so while zap-10 may seem unfair, a foul that immediately stops the clock or prevents the snap does have an effect on the game, so the NCAA Rules Committee saw the need to add a 10-second runoff to the game to nullify the effect of fouls stopping the clock. In the 2010 Music City Bowl, North Carolina spiked the ball with 1 second left and 17 players on the field :!#. Of course, there was a  ^flag for illegal substitution, but the game clock was stopped, and UNC was able to substitute on the field goal team and tie the game. To prevent something like this from happening again, the 10-second runoff was introduced.

Perhaps NFHS should take a leaf out of the NCAA Rules Book on this one, because while the intentional grounding was not done to deliberately bypass the rules (it was done to abort the play and give the offense a chance to attempt another), it still "gamed" the game clock by stopping it when it would not have stopped absent the foul. The same thing applies for false starts, encroachments, illegal substitutions, helmets off, and injuries, because all disrupt the flow of the game, and cause stoppages when there would otherwise be none. To prevent tomfoolery with the game clock near the end of each half (when teams are more likely to do crazy stuff to save or spend time), the 10-second runoff is an option in the last minute, as well as the ability to start the clock on the snap after penalties at the option of the offended team (NFHS) or trailing team (NCAA; note that when the game is tied, both teams are considered trailing for the purpose of this rule) in the last 2 minutes of each half.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #34 on: September 09, 2019, 09:06:21 PM »
I agree. What’s the difference in principle between NCAA and the NFHS applications? Both achieve the same goal.  The NFHS actually gives the referee more latitude in applying the rule to make sure the game ends fairly.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline Kalle

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 2898
  • FAN REACTION: +102/-34
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #35 on: September 10, 2019, 03:26:32 AM »
I agree. What’s the difference in principle between NCAA and the NFHS applications? Both achieve the same goal.  The NFHS actually gives the referee more latitude in applying the rule to make sure the game ends fairly.

I guess the difference is that NCAA prefers consistency in implementation by forcing the referee to take the 10-second runoff in some normal situations, whereas NFHS prefers to keep the rules simple (both are good preferences, IMO, and unfortunately often in conflict, as anybody studying the NCAA rules knows). Note that even with the 10-second runoff the old NCAA rules (I think very similar to their NFHS counterparts) are still there, so in NCAA the referee can still order the game clock to start either on the snap or the ready if s/he considers the team to be attempting to conserve or consume time by tactics obviously unfair, and s/he may also add/remove time from the game clock in the same circumstances.

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3181
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-109
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #36 on: September 10, 2019, 05:26:06 AM »
There is rule support for ending the game, in the extraordinarily rare situations where you feel - as this may - that the illegal act rose to be an Unfair Act under Rule 9.

*9.9.1 SITUATION A:

A is trailing by five points near the end of the fourth period and has no time-outs left when the play ends on B's 3. The referee does not feel there is any illegal delay in unpiling and that time will definitely expire before the ball is ready and A gets in position to snap. Quarterback A1 reaches into the pile of players and grabs the ball. He then throws the ball to midfield.

RULING: Even if the referee imposes a 15-yard penalty for an unsportsmanlike act, A has accomplished its goal – the game clock is stopped and it can get in position and be ready to run a play even though the game clock will start on the ready-for-play signal. This situation illustrates when it is appropriate for the referee to invoke the unfair-act rule and handle the situation in any way that the referee feels is equitable. In this specific situation the referee should wind the clock and end the game without giving A an opportunity to put the ball in play.

COMMENT: The rule also gives the referee authority to take appropriate action whenever someone not subject to the rules hinders play. (3-4-6)

Why would you have even stopped the clock here?  Knowing that A is trying to stop the clock, I would simply retrieve the ball place it down, and then blow the whistle to enforce the DB USC or DOG.  By then the game would be over and any enforcement would be moot.
« Last Edit: September 10, 2019, 06:43:11 AM by NVFOA_Ump »
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3676
  • FAN REACTION: +284/-541
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #37 on: September 11, 2019, 03:08:07 PM »
Why would you have even stopped the clock here?  Knowing that A is trying to stop the clock, I would simply retrieve the ball place it down, and then blow the whistle to enforce the DB USC or DOG.  By then the game would be over and any enforcement would be moot.

An interesting, and somewhat practical suggestion.  Unfortunately NFHS 2-31-1 advises; "Passing the ball is throwing the ball that is in player possession..." It does NOT differentiate between "Legal/ILLEGAL".

NFHS 3-4-4 instructs, "The clock shall be stopped when"...f: A legal or illegal forward pass is incomplete. (And Timers are instructed and conditioned to instantly stop the clock when ANY forward pass is incomplete (especially near the end of either Half)

NFHS 7-5-5 instructs; "A forward pass, legal or illegal, is incomplete and the ball becomes dead when the pass touches the ground or goes OOB."
« Last Edit: September 11, 2019, 03:25:36 PM by AlUpstateNY »

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3181
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-109
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #38 on: September 12, 2019, 08:03:58 AM »
We've been told for years that this is not a pass since by definition it was not:   1. a live ball, nor 2. a ball made ready for play.  This is simply a player trying to use any method possible to stop the clock.

I have absolutely no reason or mandated rule support to stop the clock here IMHO.  We'll simply retrieve the ball, make it ready for play, and if the game clock had expired so be it.  That's a far better option than using a catchall to justify winding the clock while not allowing the ball to be snapped.  Then, for good measure, we'll add a DB-USC to the team A player for his action in throwing the ball.
« Last Edit: September 12, 2019, 08:25:56 AM by NVFOA_Ump »
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #39 on: September 12, 2019, 09:24:16 AM »
I agree. The simple act of throwing the ball doesn't meet the definition of a pass - legal or otherwise. I also agree the most commonsense thing to do in the casebook situation is to casually retrieve the ball while winding the clock.

Offline ilyazhito

  • *
  • Posts: 132
  • FAN REACTION: +1/-6
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #40 on: September 12, 2019, 02:56:27 PM »
The OP was about intentional grounding, so that situation was undoubtedly a pass. As a result, the game clock would be governed by the rule for incomplete passes, unless the R used the God rule (1-1-6) and (3-4-6).The situation with the QB throwing the ball away to intentionally stop the clock would require the clock to stop for penalty enforcement. There is no provision in NFHS that would explicitly allow the R to prevent the snap, unless the God rule was used. NCAA would enforce zap-10 in this situation as well and end the game, because the UNS stopped the game clock immediately and prevented the snap.

Offline CalhounLJ

  • *
  • Posts: 1218
  • FAN REACTION: +30/-31
  • Without officials... it is only recess.
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #41 on: September 12, 2019, 03:28:51 PM »
The OP was about intentional grounding, so that situation was undoubtedly a pass. As a result, the game clock would be governed by the rule for incomplete passes, unless the R used the God rule (1-1-6) and (3-4-6).The situation with the QB throwing the ball away to intentionally stop the clock would require the clock to stop for penalty enforcement. There is no provision in NFHS that would explicitly allow the R to prevent the snap, unless the God rule was used. NCAA would enforce zap-10 in this situation as well and end the game, because the UNS stopped the game clock immediately and prevented the snap.
IMO, the zap-10 is the Ultimate “god rule.”


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Offline AlUpstateNY

  • *
  • Posts: 3676
  • FAN REACTION: +284/-541
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #42 on: September 12, 2019, 03:38:36 PM »
If/when this particular horse is EVER unanimously declared OFFICIALLY DEAD, can we get back to clarifying, "Specifically, how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?"

Offline NVFOA_Ump

  • *
  • Posts: 3181
  • FAN REACTION: +76/-109
  • High School (MA & RI)
    • Massachusetts Independent Football Officials Association
Re: Intentional grounding clock administration
« Reply #43 on: September 13, 2019, 06:38:58 AM »
If/when this particular horse is EVER unanimously declared OFFICIALLY DEAD, can we get back to clarifying, "Specifically, how many angles can dance on the head of a pin?"

Not many, I'm an Umpire!   ;D
It's easy to get the players, getting 'em to play together, that's the hard part. - Casey Stengel